Where can I find the qualification standards for my local PD?

[JRV]

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]

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]

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

[JRV]

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

Thank you for tracking that down and posting it! I'll give it a listen tonight.

[BigD]

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.

[TGS]

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.

[Mas]

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]

What HCM said here.

Would my training records from a security company serve the same purpose?

ETA: Let's hope I never find out

[Mas]

They should, Cypher.

[RJ]

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.