Trainers testifying?

[jlw]

I have declined to train with certain instructors because I don't want their videos played in court to my detriment.

So far, I have only had one student involved in an actual shooting, and it was an on duty shooting. I was called to the stand in a preliminary hearing in that case, but it was in relation to my investigation of the incident and not training related.

[Erick Gelhaus]

In a local one that got a wee bit blown out of proportion, none of the instructors the shooters had taken training from were even interviewed by the plaintiffs - never mind deposed and subpeoned. One of that organization's use of force program supervisors was identified as the "Person Most Knowledgable" on the entity's training program and policies. He was disposed but it was pretty minimal.

As has been mentioned by many here, from a couple different views, it would behove a student to consider how an instructor could play in court. Seemingly innocuous teaching points and task specific comments can be over-exagerated by unscrupulous media and opposing counsel.

[Dagga Boy]

When your training curriculum is a major part of a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit......sort of changes how you think and why many instructors who have been under that level of scrutiny have a bit of a different take on many trends in the training industry. When in that situation I was thankful I based my program on the methodology of a unit that had been under this type of scrutiny in the past. Golden moments in life is when the Chief's special investigator calls you into the office and says that the plaintiff's are taking a totally different approach because your training program did not leave any openings for them and he appreciated my ability to defend the methodology.

I have a strong belief that we often focus way too much on the "shooting". That is perfect if your focus is "shooting". If your focus is on use of force with a firearm and you not focusing on Pre-shooting, shooting, and post shooting, then you may be opening up for a bunch of issues. I find nothing particularly magical about how to shoot and it is quite a simple concept (Vickers quote of shooting a pistol is simple, but not easy is on the money). How you handle dynamic and complex force decisions and functioning under great stress in a crisis is where a bunch of potential for problems lies.

[GJM]

So does this mean that every instructor you have taken a class with is fair game for the other side, and can be used against you?

[Erick Gelhaus]

So does this mean that every instructor you have taken a class with is fair game for the other side, and can be used against you?

Depending on how opposing counsel - prosecution or plaintiff - chooses to handle it, a definite maybe is the answer.

It is nice to an attorney agreeing with one concept - the staff attorney at the Nat'l Tactical Officers Association is advocating for a greater emphasis on understanding, teaching case law considerations on the use of force side of things. Not just Tenn. v. Garner and Graham v. Connor but also Scott v. Harris, Plumhoff v. Rickard, and Mullenix v. Luna. As Dagga Boy mentions too much emphasis on trigger manipulation, there probably has not been enough on the legal parameters. It's my understanding that being able to educate counsel on what cases were actually about and what the rulings said can be a good thing.

[John Hearne]

So does this mean that every instructor you have taken a class with is fair game for the other side, and can be used against you?

“If you have the law, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, muddy the waters."

[Lester Polfus]

So does this mean that every instructor you have taken a class with is fair game for the other side, and can be used against you?

It depends. I once took a class with a Big Name, without doing my due dilligance and came to regret it as that particular individual is now #1 on my "List of Firearms Trainers Most Likely To Die In An Armed Standoff With The Cops."

I asked to be removed from said trainers email list, and expressed my concerns about some inflamatory things the trainer said.

For the last 11 years I have retained both electronic and paper copies of the expletive laden response.

If I have a Really Bad Day my plan is to fully disclose my entire training history to my counsel, including the email exchange, which I think demonstrates that I am a reasonable , responsible person who unfortunately wasted several hundred bucks and a day on a real turd.

[Erick Gelhaus]

“If you have the law, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, muddy the waters."

Truth!

[BehindBlueI's]

So does this mean that every instructor you have taken a class with is fair game for the other side, and can be used against you?

Everything is fair game. If it comes up or not is a different matter. In my deposition for my first 'wrongful death' lawsuit, I was asked about things as mundane as my hobbies, veteran status, etc. It depends on if the attorney knows what questions to ask and what they are digging for.

“If you have the law, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, muddy the waters."

Yup. As I've heard it, "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table." It becomes about showmanship, creating a narrative, and then selling that narrative.

[Dagga Boy]

“If you have the law, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, muddy the waters."

Ditto here as well from what I have seen. In the most significant case I was involved in, there was no room to attack the actual shooting and killing of the suspect as it was near perfect in regards to how my people were trained and their expected response when threatened with a firearm once it was clear what the plaintiff side thought was excessive was in fact right on the money. They made much better headway attacking supervisor decision making, not following policy in those decisions, and other issues totally un related to the actual shooting part or even on the officers who fired in self defense.