Actually, there are lawyers who get it, and they win righteous cases. But they are still stuck with the facts their clients have made. Once the incident has happened, nothing will change the facts the lawyer must work with. Bad facts produce bad results. If we want to improve our chnaces of good results we need to learn to make good decisions giving our lawyers good facts.
I'm merely submitting that sometimes, there is not clarity with regard to the "facts." Perhaps bad results but no one can say for certain, absent a video record or multiple eyewitnesses, whether the facts were "bad facts." Most often, forensics cannot always tell us which shot
in what order out of multiple shots fired was the lethal shot unless that shot came while the subject was running away or already down.. So was that last shot necessary? After the first three or four shots, could the subject have possibly maintained control of his/her weapon to the point of still presenting a lethal threat?
Of course "we need to learn to make good decisions." But in a lethal force situation, one is never thinking that nor worrying about leaving one's lawyer with "good facts."
Nope. It's amazing what we can learn to do and process when we train for it. Consider driving a car on a fast moving, crowded freeway. If you're doing that on intuition you'll be in a ditch very quickly.
Of course we can all perform miracles if we learn a skill and process when we train for it, but mostly, I disagree with you here as well. Perhaps I should have used the term instinct or perception. But I submit much of one's normal driving is performed intuitively
Nevertheless -- and only those who've actually been in a lethal force confrontation can possibly understand this -- you are not thinking things through past frantically remembering "front sight, front sight" while trying to get your weapon on target and possibly seeking cover ... While the outcome might be favorable to you, the aftermath (legal, criminal or civil) might just be a crapshoot, and have nothing to do with the actual facts of the event as you perceived them during the event.
Having said all this, I do agree that the current school of thought perpetuated by many trainers of shooting to slide-lock is irresponsible and can obviously lead to unfavorable long-term outcomes for those who might have prevailed in a lethal force situation.
Yet, anyone who's been in combat or in a lethal force engagement (law enforcement or as a citizen) knows that it can be difficult to know when to stop shooting and attempt to assess the status of the threat. There are a few trainers out there who know this and have devised some training methodology to address this (I believe Tom Givens is one).
It's interesting to note that in many law enforcement shootings -- involving folks who've received advanced training -- I'm familiar with, one or more officers fired many more shots than necessary after the threat was presumably or demonstratively not a threat any longer ... yet a handful of citizen shootings (where the shooters had absolutely no formal training), only one or two shots in each situation were fired by the citizens and resulting in ending by death, incapacitation or the subject's fleeing ...