Accuracy is extremely important, however, in a range/training setting for learning purposes it can be suspended. (Speed vs. accuracy vs. tactics to gauge benchmarks)
For the conceal carrying citizen, it is very important to understand the consequences of pulling the trigger, or even pulling a gun on someone. This needs to be figured out in great detail before a loaded firearm is carried because nothing should be a surprise to that person once they made up their mind to use that firearm.
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
I think that is something that "should" be left up to the individual.
If a new shooter wants to study the legal aftermath of lethal force, then so be it.
If they choose to focus on safety, fundamentals, and manipulation, that is there choice.
Obviously, a balance would be ideal.
Should it be addressed? Yes. Absolutely. But, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
That is not my area of expertise. I will relay what I can, but it's also not what my courses of instruction are about. I get less than 2 days in most cases, and can barely make it through the curriculum I have. At my 16 week police academy class, we spent 2 weeks on the same topic.
Not sound completely cliche, but I am betting I am in the minority on this board, where I have been involved in a full blown criminal investigation based off of a decision to use deadly force. And "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" has a lot of simplistic truth to it. If you don't have the ability to use the gun, then the rest of it is completely irrelevant. Being dead means someone will be arguing on my behalf. At least I am still vertical and breathing to defend myself in court.
If someone wants training on the legal aspect, they should seek out the experts in that field. A firearms trainer needs to address it, but only within the confines of their expertise, and their best suggestion is likely to be additional training for their students from legal SME's.
This topic especially, more so than many others is one where the trainer needs to:
I don't want a lawyer running # 2 man in my stack during a hostage rescue, regardless of how many weekend warrior courses he has attended, and I don't want my # 2 man in the stack representing me at my homicide trial, regardless of how many episodes of Law & Order he has watched.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
I will give some of my thoughts on both the civilian and LE side of training. I will be the first to say that I chose not to do much instruction at this point in my life that is civilian based. This is mostly factored around time, logistics and my own personal choice. I will add that this is not meant to be negative as I am very supportive of quality civilian based training and supportive of the civilian shooting world, be it defensive, recreational or sporting in nature.
As far as my thoughts on civilian training I believe that an instructor has a duty to themselves, their students and the public to provide instruction in regards to liability when providing firearms instruction and especially in regards to using a firearm for defensive purposes. The type of instruction / curriculum should dictate the amount of attention paid to the liability topic in general. By this I mean that the emphasis placed on this area of training should be more comprehensive when talking about a CCW, personal or home defense type of course as opposed to a basic firearms familiarization type of course, however by all means I am not saying that the topic in general should ever be downplayed. For defensive or similar based training, use of force and local laws should be a part of the curriculum and at the least the current acceptable standards for that jurisdiction in which the class is held is good to be relayed. Now I am not talking about conducting a dissertation on laws in this area, but it should at least comprehensive enough that students understand the basic laws and concepts being stressed.
Now as a student, the majority of my experiences for instructional training has LE based so indeed this topic has been heavily stressed. For myself as an instructor my normal student base dictates that I stress the importance of liability etc...I do not instruct at an intro or new recruit level so most of my students, at least from the LE side of things, are seasoned and already have a decent understanding of liability in regards to firearms, use of force, policy, procedure, etc.. The military personnel that I teach have a slightly different take on the topic with various degrees of ROE depending on their function and where they are operating, but I do still provide them with the same instruction in this area as I would any of my students from Local, State or Federal LE.
In brief and on a student level (not admin concerns) I will stress much of the base foundational case laws that have shaped this topic in general and make it a point to cover all of the court noted deficiencies cited in training and obviously at an advanced level take their training much further beyond what might be considered the minimum. I stress the importance of understanding use of force, current policy and procedure, as well as reinforcing the understanding of probable cause and how all of this may factor into or relate to "qualified immunity". I also stress understanding various factors such as current intel, past actions / history, relaying and logging of real time current intel / information and its importance as to how it may shape an individuals mindset / beliefs and how it may relate to "reasonableness" and how and why it may vary from person to person.
Having said the above, here is a bit of an anecdote that may relate to your original saying of "A lawyer attached to every bullet". Within my field and in my jurisdiction, we almost take it as a given that we are going to be involved in some type of a suit no matter what the circumstances. I have been named on a few occasions, my longest lasting 5 years, two running at one time. No matter how small or frivolous that they may be at face value, going through the entire process even when the outcome is a "win", it is also some type of a loss for the persons named. How heavy a toll it takes on a person, their professional and personal lives and how it may affect their families may vary from person to person and from situation to situation but something is always taken out of you. I can only recall one incident where we were not named, but then again the guy had been shooting at people on and off for a week and on the day we were involved he shot at the guys in uniform before we got there and he made the mistake at shooting at us a few times, plus he was high on just about every drug. Sad but this day in age it seems like that is the circumstances needed in order to not be named even when everything is done right. People sue for everything, so as far a LE is concerned we understand that there is often going to be an attempt to put hands into the "deep pockets", so in my own personal experiences the saying "a lawyer attached to every bullet" isn't too far from truth and it has been some type of an influence in how I operate / train and how I teach. I like to think despite the negativity that I was on the receiving end, helps me in a positive way as an instructor and benefits my students.
I've never heard the phrase used in a course I've attended, but the basic premise that you own what shoot has definitely been covered. The best I've heard is this:
"Everything you shoot today has to end up in the berm. It's okay if it goes through all of us, as long as it ends up in the berm. Why? Because everyone here signed a waiver. You all signed away saying that you know you could be killed participating in today's activity. Joe Farmer living over the hill, finally being able to sleep in for once this month on the weekend? He didn't sign the waiver. He's an innocent bystander, and you owe it to all innocent bystanders to not shoot them either."
I'm not posting the instructors name simply because I know there's some douche-nozzle internet commando here who's going to take his "you all signed the waiver so it's okay to die" thing and run with it out of context stating that he's an irresponsible instructor who doesn't care about the safety of his students. Context is everything, and I thought it was a pretty good way to reinforce the idea that you're handling a deadly weapon and after you fire the shot, that round is on its own. The instructor also demonstrated excellent safety protocols, and unlike most intro tactical/self-defense courses he uses an assistant instructor for added safety supervision.
Anyone, military, law enforcement or private individual, who could possibly pull the trigger of a gun pointed at another person, should schedule time with the appropriate attorney. In addition to this, of all the classes that could be taken, Ayoobs at LFI is tippy top of the list for me. Coupled with the NRA's insurance policy.
Proper (and timely) use of the "reasonable man" rule comes wit practice. In fact, if you compete in IDPA/IPSC, a critical evaluation of the scenario is great practice.
The point being, the lawyers are the ones who evaluate your use of the "ROE" - so time spent with them is well spent.
At least that's my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
I have heard that phrase. My significant other said that “there’s a lawyer attached to every bullet” when talking about firing your weapon at any time/circumstance, aside from going shooting outside of city limits. download gb whatsapp
But isn't you and only you responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel?
11 years old.
Man - I miss the days when posters such as these posted.
I’d think everyone in this thread would agree that you’re responsible for what you do with a gun.
God Bless,
Brandon
Agreed, helluva necrobump but good names have contributed. Their absence is telling.Originally Posted by BWT
It’s an old thread and there are other threads that also parse this out, especially by DB. My take is that it is indeed a responsibility (task-oriented) but there is a significant accountability (post-task) that may reckoned, and life-changing. This point is often ignored by training/marketing/sales folks and that’s why I’m grateful PF has the wisdom recorded.
I have heard it in the context of shot accountability. I think the post-2020 version is that there is an Antifa led mob following every bullet.
D'oh...ancient thread...
And and Soros funded DA.
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
Reply With Quote
