View Full Version : Where can I find the qualification standards for my local PD?
Cypher
10-13-2019, 12:28 PM
I've looked on line and I can't seem to find the information and I don't think walking into the police station and asking would be a good idea. So where would I look?
TC215
10-13-2019, 12:32 PM
You could try to look up the POST standards for your state, which would probably provide a guideline for department qualifications.
TC215
10-13-2019, 12:45 PM
Section H has the information you’re looking for:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/post/atom/150836
Simply go into your local police station and ask to speak to the department Rangemaster or the person in charge of firearms training for the department so you can find you what the standards are for the department. You want that information to ??? Be prepared to answer this simple question without hesitation. Some states have standards and others do not. You can check out the H.R. 218 LEOSA quals for your state with an internet search which will give you quals for retired LEOs to carry from state to state. Quarterly training often varies to meet ever changing demands upon the department from state and federal bureaucrats.
LtDave
10-13-2019, 01:38 PM
Another online source would be to search the name of the agency and “manual” or “general orders”.
Cypher
10-13-2019, 01:42 PM
Simply go into your local police station and ask to speak to the department Rangemaster or the person in charge of firearms training for the department so you can find you what the standards are for the department. You want that information to ??? Be prepared to answer this simple question without hesitation. Some states have standards and others do not. You can check out the H.R. 218 LEOSA quals for your state with an internet search which will give you quals for retired LEOs to carry from state to state. Quarterly training often varies to meet ever changing demands upon the department from state and federal bureaucrats.
Thanks, no.
Nothing personal but I don't start conversations with the police unless necessary.
The reason I asked is because of an article I read by Massad Ayoob in which he recommended that you keep your training records if possible and evidence that you can shoot your local PD's pistol qualification course. I've kept all my training records from G4S and can prove I shot expert on their course every time I qualified. I'd like to see if I can do the same with CSPD's course.
I don't wish to have that conversation with anyone at CSPD headquarters because I don't want them questioning me as to why.
Cypher
10-13-2019, 01:42 PM
Section H has the information you’re looking for:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/post/atom/150836
Thank you
Thanks, no.
Nothing personal but I don't start conversations with the police unless necessary.
The reason I asked is because of an article I read by Massad Ayoob in which he recommended that you keep your training records if possible and evidence that you can shoot your local PD's pistol qualification course. I've kept all my training records from G4S and can prove I shot expert on their course every time I qualified. I'd like to see if I can do the same with CSPD's course.
I don't wish to have that conversation with anyone at CSPD headquarters because I don't want them questioning me as to why.
I think this makes sense. No need to skyline yourself.
Cypher
10-13-2019, 04:03 PM
Section H has the information you’re looking for:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/post/atom/150836
I'm a little surprised. Other than the section where you're simulating hand cuffing someone I think the G4S qualification is harder. The distances are similar but the G4S scoring ring is smaller.
The qualification for my church even uses a smaller scoring ring. They use an Omaha Q target and only shots in the 4X8 ring count
ETA: I want to clarify the above statement.
I don't mean to say that G4S gave us better training than the police. They went through the NRA's basic handgun safety course in a week. I think that's good training for what it is but I think it's completely inadequate for people you're going to arm and turn loose to respond to burglar alarms and enforce city rules not laws.
It's especially inadequate for people that you're going to expect to walk through a homeless camp at 3AM with no back up.
All I'm saying is that G4S expected a little tighter of a group on the target than CSPD does
I'm a little surprised. Other than the section where you're simulating hand cuffing someone I think the G4S qualification is harder. The distances are similar but the G4S scoring ring is smaller.
The qualification for my church even uses a smaller scoring ring. They use an Omaha Q target and only shots in the 4X8 ring count
Yeah.
I think our old COF was too easy, and then I see this:
1 3 yd. line
2 body 4 sec.
Standing, holstered, centered Draw & fire while taking 1 step right
2 body 4 sec.
Standing, holstered, centered Draw & fire while taking 1 step left
Ours is 2 rounds in 2 seconds, from concealment.
8 25 yd. line 2 body
15 sec.
Standing, holstered Position of choice – standing or kneeling while using cover When the target faces away or after the 15 seconds, perform tactical reload (not timed)
Ours was 2 rounds at 25 yards in 6 seconds, from concealment. Now it's 8 in 20 seconds, from concealment.
ETA: I don't know if I've seen an easier qual than this, with the exception of the BOP qual.
lwt16
10-13-2019, 06:21 PM
https://youtu.be/7506RT4clJk
This guy shoots several state Pd courses.
Regards.
Here's Ohio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPj6WcvN-1k
And here's Ohio Bob Vogel style. ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py1WSRpcl6E
jetfire
10-14-2019, 03:10 AM
Also, here's a video of the USAF AFQC, presented in the standard format and then with the par times cut in half.
https://youtu.be/1C0lJTSZC2Q
The AFQC video shows the USAF quals are more than the FBI quals which are presented in this video... https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/start-shooting-better-episode-7-fbi-qualification/
jetfire
10-14-2019, 06:35 AM
The AFQC video shows the USAF quals are more than the FBI quals which are presented in this video... https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/start-shooting-better-episode-7-fbi-qualification/
Having shot both, the AFQC qual is easier to pass than the FBI qual, but the AFQC qual is harder to get an "Expert" score on than to pass the FBI qual.
I have some helpful information, but it would involve you conversing with a badge otter; so, I won’t offend you by offering it.
Theoretical question: what relevance or weight would testifying that you passed a state minimum-standards qualification bear if you are involved in a self-defense shoot, especially if you have qualification records for work?
Why not take and document training on civilian self-defense from reputable instructors, or go through the motions to be qualified as an NRA Pistol Instructor?
Law enforcement quals show bare minimum competence, not to mention making the statement alone without corroborating witness testimony would have dubious weight. If you're trying to show that you have a serious academic approach to lethal force and exercising good judgment under stress, having documented education seems more beneficial.
Cypher
10-14-2019, 04:27 PM
Theoretical question: what relevance or weight would testifying that you passed a state minimum-standards qualification bear if you are involved in a self-defense shoot, especially if you have qualification records for work?
I'm not sure but I'm willing to take Massad Ayoob's word for it.
Why not take and document training on civilian self-defense from reputable instructors, or go through the motions to be qualified as an NRA Pistol Instructor?
I have taken training from a reputable instructor but my church has the training records.
Law enforcement quals show bare minimum competence, not to mention making the statement alone without corroborating witness testimony would have dubious weight. If you'yre trying to show that you have a serious academic approach to lethal force and exercising good judgment under stress, having documented education seems more beneficial.
I may have miss read the article.
Cypher
10-14-2019, 04:28 PM
I have some helpful information, but it would involve you conversing with a badge otter; so, I won’t offend you by offering it.
Thanks for your insightful and informative input.
I'm a little surprised. Other than the section where you're simulating hand cuffing someone I think the G4S qualification is harder. The distances are similar but the G4S scoring ring is smaller.
The qualification for my church even uses a smaller scoring ring. They use an Omaha Q target and only shots in the 4X8 ring count
ETA: I want to clarify the above statement.
I don't mean to say that G4S gave us better training than the police. They went through the NRA's basic handgun safety course in a week. I think that's good training for what it is but I think it's completely inadequate for people you're going to arm and turn loose to respond to burglar alarms and enforce city rules not laws.
It's especially inadequate for people that you're going to expect to walk through a homeless camp at 3AM with no back up.
All I'm saying is that G4S expected a little tighter of a group on the target than CSPD does
Most state standards are the minimum. Some agencies use the state COF but most choose to develop their own, more challenging COF.
For example, the TX TCOLE COF is very easy. My local SO uses the state COF while our local PD has their own more difficult COF more like many federal LE quals.
That said, you will find very few LE COF that are challenging by PF standards. Most are designed with “no officer / Agent left behind” in mind.
Another option is the FBI COF as used by Tom Givens and some other instructors. If searching online the current version is 50 rounds.
ST911
10-14-2019, 08:12 PM
This may be helpful.
Members of the shooting community often reference law enforcement firearms proficiency standards as useful measures of competency. They will measure themselves against these standards, use them as benchmarks, or adapt the courses of fire for their own uses.
As part of other efforts, I have been collecting the handgun qualification courses of fire established by state regulatory bodies governing police service (POST boards, etc). These courses of fire represent that states academy exit standard for handgun proficiency, annual (or more frequent) continuing education or proficiency requirement for the handgun, other applicable handgun qualification standard established for serving as a law enforcement officer in that state, or a state LEOSA standard.
The links below are those courses of fire, listed alphabetically by state. To ensure accuracy, only those courses of fire published by the POST body, to their own website, are included here. Where the course is part of a larger document or manual, page numbers are referenced.
As you utilize this resource, keep in mind that these constitute a minimum standard of proficiency. Alternate courses may be approved in lieu of these courses, and local agencies may utilize higher standards in their programs.
....
Alabama Police Officers Standards and Training Commission
http://www.apostc.state.al.us/Portals/0/Firearms%20Revised%203-29-07.pdf
Alaska Police Standards Council
Not found on site
Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training
Semi-auto: http://www.azpost.state.az.us/assets/Firearms/2013Semi.AutoQualCourse+defintions.pdf
Revolver: http://www.azpost.state.az.us/assets/Firearms/2013RevolverCourse.pdf
Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy
http://www.clest.org/aleta/Documents/handgun.pdf
California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site
Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/HANDGUN%20QUALIFICATION%20COURSE.pdf
Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council
Not found on site
Delaware Council on Police Training
Not found on site
Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/75909126-f582-4dad-909c-9c34dff428e7/CJSTC-086ADTD110807.aspx
Georgia Police Officers Standards and Training Council
http://www.gapost.org/pdf_file/gsac05.pdf
Hawaii
Not found on site
Idaho Peace Officers Standards and Training
http://www.post.idaho.gov/Forms/documents/FirearmsQualForm.pdf
Illinois Law Enforcement Standards and Training Board
http://www.ptb.state.il.us/pdf/AdmRulesAnnualFirearms.pdf
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/hr218secondarycw.cfm Secondary/Covert Weapon Course of Fire, 2006 (LEOSA Qual)
Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board
http://www.in.gov/ilea/files/48_round_course.pdf
http://www.in.gov/ilea/files/60_round_course.pdf (IN LE Academy Instructor Handgun Course)
Iowa Law Enforcement Academy
Not found on site
Kansas Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training
http://www.kscpost.org/target.php
http://www.kletc.org/pdf/resources_hr218_course_of_fire.pdf
Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training
Not found on site
Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement Administration of Criminal Justice
http://www.lcle.la.gov/programs/uploads/2009_Pre_Academy_Manual.pdf
(Page 59)
Maine Criminal Justice Academy
http://www.maine.gov/dps/mcja/forms/documents/LawEnforcementPistolQualificationCourse2011.doc
Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions
Not found on site
Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/LEO_002/LESOA_State_Standard_Firearms_Qualification.pdf
Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mcoles/Firearms_Standard_249947_7.pdf
(Page 20)
Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training
https://dps.mn.gov/entity/post/forms/Documents/LEOSAIA-instructions.pdf
Mississippi Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site
Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site
Montana Peace Officers Standards and Training Council
Not found on site
Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center
http://www.nletc.state.ne.us/pdfs/FireQual.pdf
Nevada Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training
Not found on site
New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council
Not found on site
New Jersey Police Training Commission
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/njptc/manuals/BasicCourseFirearmsManual.pdf (Page 23)
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf
New Mexico Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Academy
http://nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/documents/Reference_Guide.pdf
(Page 88)
New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services
Not found on site
North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission
http://ncja.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/fe3d19fc-f3ca-40b7-9f39-f02aa563a9e4/In-Service-Firearms-Qual--Manual-2013-02---Rev--XI.aspx
(Page 50)
North Dakota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
Not found on site
Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission
http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Law-Enforcement/Ohio-Peace-Officer-Training-Academy/OPOTA-news/Semi-Auto-Pistol-Qualification-Course-of-Fire.aspx
Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training
http://www.ok.gov/cleet/documents/FirearmsQualificationJune2007.pdf
Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training
Not found on site
Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Commission
Not found on site
Rhode Island Police Officers Commission on Standards and Training
Not found on site
South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council
Not found on site
South Dakota Law Enforcement Standards and Training Commission
https://atg.sd.gov/docs/State%20Handgun%20Qual%20Course%20NOV%202013.pdf
Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission
Not found on site
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
Not found on site
Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site
Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council
Not found on site
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standardsTraining/compulsoryMinimumTraining/cjm.pdf
(Pages 508-515)
Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
Not found on site
West Virginia Division of Justice and Community Services – LEPS
Not found on site
Wisconsin Department of Justice Training and Standards Bureau
https://wilenet.org/html/leosa/wis-course-approved.pdf
Wyoming Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission
Not found on site
Cypher
10-14-2019, 08:16 PM
This may be helpful.
Thank you
I may have miss read the article.
I am absolutely certain you didn't. I believe I have read the article you're mentioning, or a similar article citing that one. Mas Ayoob's writing is prolific and extremely valuable to anybody that carries a handgun for self-defense. He's a long-serving expert witness and a scholar in his own right. He might disagree with me entirely.
My comments were directed more to the fact that the Overton Window on training available to the civilian self-defender has shifted so drastically in the past 40 years that I think you could do far better than a LEO qual if you wanted to put on evidence of your competence and/or the seriousness with which you take the responsibility of concealed carry.
Erick Gelhaus
10-14-2019, 10:55 PM
Regarding the California entry above, while there are standard handgun & shotgun courses of fire for the basic academy, there are not state-wide courses of fire for officers after they've graduated.
Of interest - I can't recall coming across a court case that relies on a qual course, they seem to all rely on the issue of training. Was there training? Did it meet the standards laid out in various cases involving the use of deadly force by coppers?
jlw - well played, sir.
I am absolutely certain you didn't. I believe I have read the article you're mentioning, or a similar article citing that one. Mas Ayoob's writing is prolific and extremely valuable to anybody that carries a handgun for self-defense. He's a long-serving expert witness and a scholar in his own right. He might disagree with me entirely.
My comments were directed more to the fact that the Overton Window on training available to the civilian self-defender has shifted so drastically in the past 40 years that I think you could do far better than a LEO qual if you wanted to put on evidence of your competence and/or the seriousness with which you take the responsibility of concealed carry.
I disagree with you. Mas suggestion is not a bad one. I am no Mas Ayoob But I have 24 years of dealing with prosecutors, judges, juries and grand jury’s.
Law enforcement Handgun qualifications are not much in terms of developing pistol skills, particularly to an enthusiast But that is not the point of documenting such a qualification for a civilian shooter. LE qualifications are validated by legal precedent and accepted by courts, prosecutors, jurors, and Grand Jurors, none of whom are usually gun enthusiast or shooters.
If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.
I disagree with you. Mas suggestion is not a bad one. I am no Mas Ayoob But I have 24 years of dealing with prosecutors, judges, juries and grand jury’s.
Law enforcement Handgun qualifications are not much in terms of developing pistol skills, particularly to an enthusiast But that is not the point of documenting such a qualification for a civilian shooter. LE qualifications are validated by legal precedent and accepted by courts, prosecutors, jurors, and Grand Jurors, none of whom are usually gun enthusiast or shooters.
If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.
I appreciate your input and experience. My suggestion isn't, however, that someone try to testify about their Bill Drill times to show competence. I was thinking more about what the evidence would likely be asked to show at trial and whether a LEO qual would have as much value as something else that's comparably easy to obtain.
If you didn't miss your target and you are not disputing the intentionality of a shooting, then you're likely going to be using the evidence we are all discussing to show reasonableness and judgment at the moment of the shoot. No one cares about competence if the purpose of the criminal or civil action prosecuted is assailing the basis of the shooting itself.
Shooting 100% on the FAMS qual, for example, will require extensive training and practice. Depending on one's baseline skill, possibly months of dry-fire and live-fire.
However, if I am able to show that (a) I have 50+ or 100+ hours of documented training involving self-defense law, safe manipulation of a handgun, and scenario-based force-on-force training and (b) that I am an active and competent competition shooter, then I can (possibly) argue that:
(a) I understood the legal standards for deadly force and was able to act rationally under stress,
(b) I have deliberately subjected myself to training that required judgment calls and decision-making while using a firearm, and
(c) that I have done my best to incorporate stress inoculation (competition) into my training curriculum to ensure that I would stay clear-of-mind and tunnel-vision-free in a self-defense situation.
That's the type of evidence I would want to put forward to show that I was capable of rationally recognizing a basis for deadly force self-defense at the moment a hypothetical shooting occured. Shooting a LEO qual, while recognizable to jurors as some sort of standard, does not seem (to me) like it could be used to illustrate anything about mindset, experience, or reasonableness in an arena that would require proving those issues on defense.
As a final thought, given much of the public discourse surrounding LEO shootings in recent years, I am not sure I would advise a client to associate themselves with standards likely perceived to be low or inadequate by much of the population.
I appreciate your input and experience. My suggestion isn't, however, that someone try to testify about their Bill Drill times to show competence. I was thinking more about what the evidence would likely be asked to show at trial and whether a LEO qual would have as much value as something else that's comparably easy to obtain.
If you didn't miss your target and you are not disputing the intentionality of a shooting, then you're likely going to be using the evidence we are all discussing to show reasonableness and judgment at the moment of the shoot. No one cares about competence if the purpose of the criminal or civil action prosecuted is assailing the basis of the shooting itself.
Shooting 100% on the FAMS qual, for example, will require extensive training and practice. Depending on one's baseline skill, possibly months of dry-fire and live-fire.
However, if I am able to show that (a) I have 50+ or 100+ hours of documented training involving self-defense law, safe manipulation of a handgun, and scenario-based force-on-force training and (b) that I am an active and competent competition shooter, then I can (possibly) argue that:
(a) I understood the legal standards for deadly force and was able to act rationally under stress,
(b) I have deliberately subjected myself to training that required judgment calls and decision-making while using a firearm, and
(c) that I have done my best to incorporate stress inoculation (competition) into my training curriculum to ensure that I would stay clear-of-mind and tunnel-vision-free in a self-defense situation.
That's the type of evidence I would want to put forward to show that I was capable of rationally recognizing a basis for deadly force self-defense at the moment a hypothetical shooting occured. Shooting a LEO qual, while recognizable to jurors as some sort of standard, does not seem (to me) like it could be used to illustrate anything about mindset, experience, or reasonableness in an arena that would require proving those issues on defense.
As a final thought, given much of the public discourse surrounding LEO shootings in recent years, I am not sure I would advise a client to associate themselves with standards likely perceived to be low or inadequate by much of the population.
Cops in general aren’t great pistol shooters by PF standards but compared to the average public range shooter or person with just a mandatory CHL class they are steely eyed gunfighters.....
Re: the FAMS - the technical proficiency of the FAMS is another example of gun nerd stuff.
You need to think of this as a marketing issue not a technical issue and you are marketing to the general public. Your target audience watches criminal minds, Quantico, silence of the lambs, point break, etc, etc
HCountyGuy
10-15-2019, 06:04 AM
If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.
This hits the intent of Mas’s explanation pretty square on, at least in my opinion.
The reasoning I remember being given for shooting at least the state-level LEO qualification was to demonstrate that one was at least as competent in their firearms handling as what’s required for each officer certified in the state. So if some attorney wanted to say you were incompetent with a firearm, you can have your passing score brought up to counter that claim and then see if that attorney has the stones to make the argument that the state qualification was insufficient and thereby insinuating all officers in the state have no business with a gun.
lwt16
10-15-2019, 06:38 AM
I offer my state's APOST qual course to students I train as well as the newest fifty round 2019 FBI qual course. I explain that while it may not be worth a hill of beans in court proceedings it costs nothing more than ammo and time to perform. One quick snapshot of the target/student emailed to them provides documentation of the event should the need arise in the future to show a standard was met.
Plus, they all need the trigger time anyway.
100 percent of them take me up on the offer.
Regards.
revchuck38
10-15-2019, 06:42 AM
JRV - Shooting a passing (or better) score on a LE qual has no relevance to mindset or legal knowledge. I'm pretty sure nobody implied that it did. It simply demonstrates a level of technical competence with a handgun that most citizens can relate to.
If I'm ever in a self-defense shooting, will part of my legal defense include the fact that I've shot the FBI qual with an instructor-level score*, witnessed by a high-level trainer? You betcha. Will it include the fact that I've been trained on the legal requirements for the use of deadly force? You betcha. Will it include the fact that I've been trained to avoid the use of deadly force unless absolutely necessary? You betcha.
It's not "either/or", it's "both/and".
*FWIW, I'm on the lower end of the skill level on this forum.
This hits the intent of Mas’s explanation pretty square on, at least in my opinion.
The reasoning I remember being given for shooting at least the state-level LEO qualification was to demonstrate that one was at least as competent in their firearms handling as what’s required for each officer certified in the state. So if some attorney wanted to say you were incompetent with a firearm, you can have your passing score brought up to counter that claim and then see if that attorney has the stones to make the argument that the state qualification was insufficient and thereby insinuating all officers in the state have no business with a gun.
Okay, but in what case would someone, being prosecuted for an intentional crime or an intentional tort, be assailed for their competence in doing the intentional act?
Example:
Your competence as a driver is relevant evidence as to whether you caused a negligent collision to occur. Your competence as a driver is irrelevant if you intentionally kill someone with a car. If you offer self-defense as a defense to the homicide, competence is also irrelevant to proving you drove the car defensively in a given set of circumstances.
This is why I am still not understanding the value of a LEO qual, and why I can't imagine wasting the 50 rounds on one when there are so many training opportunities available that can support a showing that you acted reasonably and proportionally.
I am not saying that Mas Ayoob has not seen competence at issue in a courtroom. I am also not saying that someone on PF has not seen this actually occur firsthand. Lawyers do stupid shit (I am one). However, I am asking how that bit of evidence (a LEO qual) could ever make, or has ever made, an iota of difference in a criminal or civil case involving an intentional act of self-defense.
lwt16
10-15-2019, 07:46 AM
This is why I am still not understanding the value of a LEO qual, and why I can't imagine wasting the 50 rounds on one when there are so many training opportunities available that can support a showing that you acted reasonably and proportionally.
Most of my students thoroughly enjoyed shooting both the state and FBI qual. They liked seeing where they stood on those courses of fire as well as seeing where they needed to sharpen up.....such as at the 25 yard line and first shot from concealed draws.
Pretty much all of them asked to be ran through the courses again and most improved their scores and their times.
None of them considered it "wasting" rounds....not in the practical sense.
Regards.
HCountyGuy
10-15-2019, 10:20 AM
Okay, but in what case would someone, being prosecuted for an intentional crime or an intentional tort, be assailed for their competence in doing the intentional act?
Example:
Your competence as a driver is relevant evidence as to whether you caused a negligent collision to occur. Your competence as a driver is irrelevant if you intentionally kill someone with a car. If you offer self-defense as a defense to the homicide, competence is also irrelevant to proving you drove the car defensively in a given set of circumstances.
This is why I am still not understanding the value of a LEO qual, and why I can't imagine wasting the 50 rounds on one when there are so many training opportunities available that can support a showing that you acted reasonably and proportionally.
I am not saying that Mas Ayoob has not seen competence at issue in a courtroom. I am also not saying that someone on PF has not seen this actually occur firsthand. Lawyers do stupid shit (I am one). However, I am asking how that bit of evidence (a LEO qual) could ever make, or has ever made, an iota of difference in a criminal or civil case involving an intentional act of self-defense.
Not being experienced with such cases myself, I’ll defer to more knowledgeable individuals who could comment on the matter with authority.
Here’s the episode of Ballistic Radio with Mas where the question arises (about 32 minutes in) and he explains his view on the subject of civilians shooting police qualifications. It is worth listening to the entirety of the episode for Mas’s insights on other aspects.
Ballistic Radio - Unconventional Wisdom (http://ballisticradio.com/2018/04/24/unconventional-wisdom-podcast-season-6-ballistic-radio-episode-251-april-22nd-2018/)
Not being experienced with such cases myself, I’ll defer to more knowledgeable individuals who could comment on the matter with authority.
Here’s the episode of Ballistic Radio with Mas where the question arises (about 32 minutes in) and he explains his view on the subject of civilians shooting police qualifications. It is worth listening to the entirety of the episode for Mas’s insights on other aspects.
Ballistic Radio - Unconventional Wisdom (http://ballisticradio.com/2018/04/24/unconventional-wisdom-podcast-season-6-ballistic-radio-episode-251-april-22nd-2018/)
Thank you for tracking that down and posting it! I'll give it a listen tonight.
Okay, but in what case would someone, being prosecuted for an intentional crime or an intentional tort, be assailed for their competence in doing the intentional act?
Example:
Your competence as a driver is relevant evidence as to whether you caused a negligent collision to occur. Your competence as a driver is irrelevant if you intentionally kill someone with a car. If you offer self-defense as a defense to the homicide, competence is also irrelevant to proving you drove the car defensively in a given set of circumstances.
This is why I am still not understanding the value of a LEO qual, and why I can't imagine wasting the 50 rounds on one when there are so many training opportunities available that can support a showing that you acted reasonably and proportionally.
I am not saying that Mas Ayoob has not seen competence at issue in a courtroom. I am also not saying that someone on PF has not seen this actually occur firsthand. Lawyers do stupid shit (I am one). However, I am asking how that bit of evidence (a LEO qual) could ever make, or has ever made, an iota of difference in a criminal or civil case involving an intentional act of self-defense.
I don’t know Mas’s reasoning. But I always assumed it came into play in an “unjustified” shooting. Let’s say you as a good civilian, respond to active shooter and while shooting at the gunman send a round over his shoulder and plug a bystander. When you get sued, you can point to your pistol qual as if to say “I wasn’t being reckless by shooting and attempting to stop the threat and save lives. I can actually shoot decently.”
(Of course whether the court accepts your self recorded qual in your backyard or local range is a different story..)
Doesn’t really matter since all y’all are going to jail anyway since you’ve changed your trigger return spring.
I don’t know Mas’s reasoning. But I always assumed it came into play in an “unjustified” shooting. Let’s say you as a good civilian, respond to active shooter and while shooting at the gunman send a round over his shoulder and plug a bystander. When you get sued, you can point to your pistol qual as if to say “I wasn’t being reckless by shooting and attempting to stop the threat and save lives. I can actually shoot decently.”
(Of course whether the court accepts your self recorded qual in your backyard or local range is a different story..)
Doesn’t really matter since all y’all are going to jail anyway since you’ve changed your trigger return spring. /s
Even worse is that you took a class at some point in time from a guy with tattoos.
I disagree with you. Mas suggestion is not a bad one. I am no Mas Ayoob But I have 24 years of dealing with prosecutors, judges, juries and grand jury’s.
Law enforcement Handgun qualifications are not much in terms of developing pistol skills, particularly to an enthusiast But that is not the point of documenting such a qualification for a civilian shooter. LE qualifications are validated by legal precedent and accepted by courts, prosecutors, jurors, and Grand Jurors, none of whom are usually gun enthusiast or shooters.
If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.
What HCM said here.
Cypher
10-15-2019, 04:37 PM
What HCM said here.
Would my training records from a security company serve the same purpose?
ETA: Let's hope I never find out
Great thread. I’m continually amazed at the depth and breadth of the folks who take time out of their day to contribute to this forum - I genuinely appreciate it.
I’ll have to drop back in and pick up the knowledge bombs (especially the Podcast with Mas) when I have more time.
Thanks Cypher.
willie
10-15-2019, 06:04 PM
My opinion is that evidence of training might be one item in a defense attorney's toolbox. Another useful item might be the fact that the defendant used the same weapon as issued in his community. I said might be. However, perhaps most important elements are having conducted oneself properly when interacting with police at the scene and assuring detectives that you will cooperate after consulting an attorney. Some writers advise not giving any information. I disagree. Mas has excellent suggestions. Other important elements would be not having written stupid comments on social media and having demonstrated erratic behavior. And if the shooter was high on dope or had been drinking when the incident occurred, then where does that lead?
At the risk of stating the obvious, I must say that all should review their state laws on using lethal force. In my area, being indicted and then having to go to trial would mean that the shooter might have made a terrible error in judgment. By this I mean pulling the trigger when one's life is not in danger as he or she interacts during the day. Being cursed,, slapped, kicked, hit, or spit on don't qualify as valid reasons to shoot. However, many of my students killed others and were themselves killed for such reasons. Jailhouses and cemeteries have very many present because their residents were affected one way or another by unwise actions.
Of course this is PF where nobody needs to hear these comments. I hope not but wish to point out to younger members that jails and prisons are real shit holes. Unwisely used, your pistol will put you there real quick, and you will be financially ruined by the time you ride the chain bus where the man will literally beat your ass for running your mouth. I know.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.