Scott Reitz Low Light and Problem Solving Tactics, Pittsburgh PA October 11-13, 2013

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

http://www.internationaltactical.com/FIRE_Institute.pdf

Registration is through the ITTS site. Note; Pitcairn is misspelled on the flyer if you are looking for directions; and the club is east of Pittsburgh, not west. Other than that, it's accurate...

Let me know if you have questions

Tony Muhlenkamp
tmuhlenkamp@gmail.com
724.934.5139

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Tim at Gun Nuts Media posted a review of Reitz's book:

http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/08/29/bo...y-scott-reitz/

It's a good review and he seems to think it's a good book. It doesn't mean the training is equally good, but that might be the way to bet.

Let me know if you have questions and I hope to see you in the class.

Tony Muhlenkamp
724.934.5139
tmuhlenkamp@gmail.com

[Dagga Boy]

While I don't agree with every single thing Scotty does, he is a "must train with" individual if you are serious about the use of firearms in a defensive role. Scotty's problem solving and low light class is outstanding. We also endorse his book as one of those things that should be in your library of gunfighting reference material.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Peter Georgiades is the head of FIRE Institute, which is hosting the Scott Reitz class in September. He found and commented on an interview with Scott Reitz (among others) on justification. I put Peter's comments in bold italics. See below. Tony Muhlenkamp

I recently read a long interview with a lawyer who practices in California, a corrections officer from California and a martial artists on the topic of the justification defense ("self defense"). Much of the information provided would be plainly incorrect in Pennsylvania, but the discussion was interesting. Here is a sample (emphasis mine):

Matt Thornton [martial artist]: One point I’d like to make in this context is that the best defense against violence is always your own mind. People tend to overlook this because it sounds like an empty platitude, but it’s true. Some people acquire the maturity and understanding to avoid violence early on, but these days*and this is obviously a good thing*most of us go our whole lives without encountering violence, so we need to be taught what to look for. We also need to be willing to see it, and we need to know how to manage our distance from it.

From the victim’s perspective, an attack may seem to have occurred suddenly, but we know that in most cases it was anything but sudden. If people were more open to their own instincts*what you referred to as “profiling” in the example you gave of the man at your daughter’s school*many crimes could be avoided altogether.

Sam Harris [attorney]: I completely agree that avoidance is almost the whole story when it comes to self-defense. I also agree that it is very easy to lose sight of this truth, because people don’t really train for avoidance or de-escalation. Rory talks about this a lot in his work. And there is a very unhappy valley between knowing nothing about self-defense and knowing a lot, where the average martial artist is probably more likely to get into a violent altercation than he otherwise would have been. His ego has become bound up in being someone who can handle violence and who doesn’t have to take shit from anyone, and his training has probably given him some unrealistic ideas about his own competence. . . . .

. . . .

[Interviewer ] Steve, how do things change if a person is attempting to rob me? I haven’t been assaulted*but the other person is implicitly threatening me with the prospect of violence by saying that if I comply with his instructions, I won’t get hurt.

Steven Levine [attorney]: If you’re being robbed, you can just kill the other person.

[Interviewer] : Are you kidding?

Steven Levine [attorney]: If you’re being robbed, you can take out your gun and shoot the person dead, and no one will prosecute you.

[I]He might well be right. Or not.

After the interview, there is an additional interview with Scott Reitz. In my opinion, Mr. Reitz is spot on with regard to everything he says, in any state, with one exception. I do not believe that all shootings are investigated as thoroughly as Scott says they are. Certainly officer involved shootings are. Unfortunately, sometimes a shooting looks so cut-and-dried the investigation is curtailed, and then later when information comes to light to suggest the matter may have been more complicated than it first appeared to be, it is too late to recover a lot of evidence.

Scott's emphasis on the need for good training, a good lawyer and top-notch expert witnesses can be seen as self-serving, since he is in the training and expert witness business. But just because it is self-serving does not mean it's not true. It is true. (And I'm not in either business.)

Like most people who have substantial experience in the legal system, Scott believes it usually works.
It does (as long as one has the money to play the game).Sam Harris: What should my readers understand about self-defense in general and the use of deadly force in particular?
Scott Reitz: That they are taken very seriously by both the investigating entities and the courts. The use of deadly force is arguably the most critical life event one may participate in. Hollywood’s version is purely entertainment. Actual deadly-force incidents are anything but entertaining.

Sam Harris: What standard is used to judge whether a use of deadly force was legitimate?

Scott Reitz: The judicial system applies the “reasonable man standard,” which is meant to be objective. In essence, it takes the facts of the case, along with any other empirical data that relate to the incident, and critically examines them*and this analysis includes the perspective of the person who applied deadly force. If a reasonable person would have judged deadly force to be warranted under the same circumstances, then the person’s actions will be deemed justified in court.

Sam Harris: So the system supports reasonable actions, by definition?

Scott Reitz: Yes. But, unfortunately, the system isn’t perfect*and what would seem to be a reasonable course of action isn’t always judged to be so. However, in most circumstances in which I have been involved, the system does absolve people who act reasonably.

Sam Harris: If a person who acts in self-defense is not charged with a crime, is that the end of it?

Scott Reitz: Not necessarily. Civil actions can be generated no matter how obtuse the rationale behind them. But the same standard of objectivity will be applied.

Sam Harris: Are you aware of cases that have gone terribly wrong?

Scott Reitz: Yes. In some cases either the attorney or the experts involved are not up to the task. At times, the defendant may misspeak with respect to his actions, resulting in an improper decision. Sometimes the courts themselves can err when issuing jury instructions, or their procedural rulings may be flawed, giving rise to an appeal.

Sam Harris: What do you advise people to do if they choose to own a firearm?

Scott Reitz: My advice is to train*and only with highly qualified instructors. Simply arming yourself without proper, realistic training is courting disaster. Deadly force is a deep subject. You must also understand the law as it relates to self-defense.

Sam Harris: What should one do if one has been involved in a lethal-force encounter?

Scott Reitz: First, secure the area and your loved ones. The police should be called, and you should follow their instructions. They have to investigate the incident. That is their primary function. I recommend that you tell them that you were in fear for your life and safety and had to defend yourself. Tell them that you will cooperate with them 100%. Then ask if you may call your attorney. In this manner you have diplomatically invoked your Miranda rights and informed them that you had to protect yourself and that you will cooperate with the investigation. You will need good legal representation, and the experts involved in your case should be of the highest caliber.

Sam Harris: To what degree are deadly-force incidents investigated?

Scott Reitz: To an extent that amazes even police officers once an investigation is under way. Each of my shootings involved hundreds of hours of investigation and mountains of paperwork and evidence. The backgrounds and personal knowledge of participants are all discoverable. Internet postings, writings, phone records, etc. can all come into play. Forensics has made galactic leaps since I started as an expert, some 24 years ago. The tools available*such as DNA, blood-spray-pattern analysis, trajectory analysis, and so forth*improve with each passing year. We can now meticulously reconstruct many incidents. To say that a shooting will be “investigated” is an understatement.

Sam Harris: Is a law-abiding citizen at any disadvantage if a case goes to trial?

Scott Reitz: Not necessarily. Most violent offenders*those whom you may have to defend yourself against*did not start out that way. They have matriculated to a level of violence through the years. They will probably have criminal records, gang affiliations, etc. Most law-abiding citizens will be viewed as precisely that*law-abiding. The District or City Attorney’s office will notice these background facts, as will experienced police investigators. I have worked with all these entities, and we all feel for victims of crime. You’re the good guys, and through proper investigation this generally comes to light. It can be frustrating when you feel that you are being treated as the offending party. But you need to be patient and heed my advice about obtaining legal representation immediately and about developing thorough knowledge of the law prior to an event.

Sam Harris: What have you experienced during deadly-force encounters?

Scott Reitz: They can happen very, very fast. Each of mine transpired in about two seconds. Training is key here. I might own a Steinway, but playing it is another matter altogether. Everything you need has to be in place beforehand. Well-trained individuals generally make good decisions and act accordingly. Untrained individuals do not. This truth seems lost on many people. I knew the law, the use-of-force continuum, and policy, which allowed me to make rapid assessments and respond appropriately.

Bad guys pick up on potential victims: They “read” people with an astounding precision. They also recognize confident and capable individuals for who they are*and this is another benefit of training. A composed person who possesses the means to protect himself poses a very real risk to a criminal, and this fact alone can prevent incidents. I experienced this firsthand over the course of thousands of arrests.

Sam Harris: Any final advice?

Scott Reitz: More often than not, the legal system protects the “good guys.” However, you must know both how and when to defend yourself, and also what degree of force is required. And you need legal representation. Deadly force is a full-spectrum event. Your knowledge prior to, actions during, and articulation after an event will determine the outcome. These events can happen anytime and anywhere. Often there is no rhyme or reason: The event simply occurs. Knowledge is power here as it is elsewhere in life. And that is why we teach. Our students have applied their training with great success on numerous occasions. It can make all the difference.

- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/s....LWOqbH63.dpuf

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

While I don't agree with every single thing Scotty does, he is a "must train with" individual if you are serious about the use of firearms in a defensive role. Scotty's problem solving and low light class is outstanding. We also endorse his book as one of those things that should be in your library of gunfighting reference material.

Thanks for the support, we're pretty excited about bringing him to Western PA.

Tony Muhlenkamp
tmuhlenkamp@gmail.com
724.934.5139

[Dagga Boy]

If I was ever in another shooting, and needed an Expert Witness, Scotty would be my number one choice. He is exceptional in this area. One of the benefits of training with Scott is that you get "non-theory" information that is grounded in extensive actual experience that is easily verified.

[SeriousStudent]

Tony, do you know if any of the attendees were planning an AAR of this class?

Thank you very much, I hope you all had a great experience.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Tony, do you know if any of the attendees were planning an AAR of this class?

Serious; I don't know; but I will post my thoughts and observations under the AAR banner. Not sure what I have to say will qualify as an AAR, but there you go.

Thank you very much, I hope you all had a great experience.

You're welcome; and it was a good three days.

[SeriousStudent]

Thank you, I will look forward to reading it.

[Dagga Boy]

Thank you, I will look forward to reading it.

Speaking of someone who is way behind on AAR's........