An interesting discussion on training and how it sometimes plays out in court

[entropy]

By your definition, USCCA would be the biggest gaslighter of all.

 

[Kleanbore]

Find me a "Do you use reloads or load your own self defense rounds" topic, and we are off to the races yet no one I had ever questioned was ever able to use any citations that was backed up with actual court cases, to defend their statements designed to scare folks from defending themselves no matter how much of a good shoot it was or could be.

If that's the question you have been asking, you do not understand the subject.

Study this:

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/the-problem-with-handloads-for-defense/

...and understand that

• Contradictions among testimony and other evidence arise routinely
• GSR evidence is routinely evaluated
• A defendant my want to introduce his own expert witness and test data
• The Rules of Evidence regarding expert witness testimony on handloads and other evidence stem from cases that went all the way to SCOTUS

. If I'm going to carry, then I want to be trained, maintaining that training, and seeking even more training.

Good!

 

[The_Quartermaster]

If that's the question you have been asking, you do not understand the subject.

Study this:

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/the-problem-with-handloads-for-defense/

...and understand that

• Contradictions among testimony and other evidence arise routinely
• GSR evidence is routinely evaluated
• A defendant my want to introduce his own expert witness and test data
• The Rules of Evidence regarding expert witness testimony on handloads and other evidence stem from cases that went all the way to SCOTUS

Good!

I stopped listening when I saw ayoob. Pass. And I do understand this subject and will not be scare mongered to not doing it. I don't, but that's not the point being made here.

 

[Kleanbore]

I stopped listening when I saw ayoob

He was quoting me and Spats McGee from THR.

Spats is a practicing attorney. I have extensive knowledge of the relevant rules of evidence, and of the laws concerning self defense.

And I do understand this subject and will not be scare mongered to not doing it.

If you did understand it, you would not call it scaremongering.

We have more than one sticky thread on the subject here.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

He was quoting me and Spats McGee from THR.

Spats is a practicing attorney. I have extensive knowledge of the relevant rules of evidence, and of the laws concerning self defense.

If you did understand it, you would not call it scaremongering.

We have more than one sticky thread on the subject here.

Again, we're going to agree to disagree without questioning the integrities and that would flair things up.

 

[Kleanbore]

Again, we're going to agree to disagree

And again, your opinion is unsupported and contradicts facts, legal precedent, and expert opinion.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

And again, your opinion is unsupported and contradicts facts, legal precedent, and expert opinion.

Unsupported? That's rich. Again, not going to clash with a mod with ban hammer powers over a subject that is very questionable, girifty, and stinks no intellectual honesty. You are using yourself as an appeal in this case, when you are in a profession that certainly has it's cases of bad apples. Not saying that you are but I do question the integrity when I smell BS being flung and a questioning of my own integrity.

So if you want to call me unsupported using a person that I don't know (YOU) and a person who's controversial (Ayoob), then by all means go for it. But don't be surprised when the message get's scoffed at as fear mongering.

I chose the High Road by trying agree to disagree. Allow me to do so without challenging my integrity which is an attack on my person.

 

[Kleanbore]

Unsupported? That's rich

Okay, cite your sources.

.Allow me to do so without challenging my integrity which is an attack on my person.

Your integrity is not in question.

What is at issuis your knowledge and understanding of a few rather esoteric subjects concerning science and the law. No one starts out with that knowledge, and no one will gain it without having it explained.

We have been over the subject at hand ad nauseam. We are willing to help you with this should you desire.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

Okay, cite your sources.

Your integrity is not in question.

What is at issuis your knowledge and understanding of a few rather esoteric subjects concerning science and the law. No one starts out with that knowledge, and no one will gain it without having it explained.

We have been over the subject at hand ad nauseam. We are willing to help you with this should you desire.

lol, this is bait. I said no, you want to continue using more bait. SMH...

You do you, and I'll do me.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The state standard is so easy I don't know how anyone could fail. I went to a regional qualification shoot run by the Standards and Training Board's Mobile Training Team that was the new state standard. I scored 100%. My chief told me that I should have thrown a couple shots because I didn't want that score on my record if I was involved in a shooting.

Yeah...a hogwash statement if ever there was one.

In 20 years in the Navy, I NEVER scored less than a perfect score in any firearms qualifications. NEVER.

And I have expert medals in pistol/rifle, too.

Neither of which makes me John Wick.

My required level of qualifications on a range for pistol, rifle, and shotgun was nowhere NEAR as in depth and arduous as most other types of training, like force on force, for example.

Timed shooting standing at a multilane range at stationary targets with a limited number of rounds meant SOLELY to establish/maintain a basic level of proficiency that amounts to knowing which direction the round end of a bullet goes when loading magazines and which end of the gun the bullets come out of does NOT make a person shine kind of kung-fu firearms master.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

Yeah...a hogwash statement if ever there was one.

In 20 years in the Navy, I NEVER scored less than a perfect score in any firearms qualifications. NEVER.

And I have expert medals in pistol/rifle, too.

Neither of which makes me John Wick.

My required level of qualifications on a range for pistol, rifle, and shotgun was nowhere NEAR as in depth and arduous as most other types of training, like force on force, for example.

Timed shooting standing at a multilane range at stationary targets with a limited number of rounds meant SOLELY to establish/maintain a basic level of proficiency that amounts to knowing which direction the round end of a bullet goes when loading magazines and which end of the gun the bullets come out of does NOT make a person shine kind of kung-fu firearms master.

We were told by some fools to qualify as marksmen only before deployment, so if we were told to wound and killed by accident that it wouldn't be our fault, LMAO.

We're never told to shoot to wound. Ever.

 

[Kleanbore]

lol, this is bait.

It is not.

I said no

No what?

If you are not interested in learning, fine.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

It is not.
No what?

If you are not interested in learning, fine.

Yes it is and no what nothing here.

And I am not interested in learning a narrative, so no thank you indeed.

Interesting that when two others recently also called you out you're still only engaging me, when I had never picked an argument with you. In fact, I kept on wanting to have both of us let things be but you clung to your heels in this one meaning you do indeed have a dog in this fight of yours. Very interesting. This again self validates why I am not going to lock horns with you as there's already a bias here at play.

 

[Kleanbore]

Bak to the subject: GEM gave us a good answer

[URL="https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/an-interesting-discussion-on-training-and-how-it-sometimes-plays-out-in-court.911384/page-2#post-12434067"]An interesting discussion on training and how it sometimes plays out in court[/URL]

One of his comments referred to the Larry Hickey case in Arizona. The content of one chart from training he had taken was used with great effect against him in both of his trials.

One other thing: a jury will be instructed to consider what a reasonable person in similar circumstances, knowing what the defendant knew at the time (there are some exceptions to that in AZ and MA) would have done. That's why having had training and being able to document what you learned can help you in court.

 

[ClicheBro]

And I am not interested in learning a narrative, so no thank you indeed.

This forum is for entertainment.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

On the flip side...those that put on the punisher stuff, or other in your face type stuff on your guns etc., shouldn't.

Very true! I can think of one guy that probably wishes he did not have obscenities engraved on his dust cover! I think it got thrown out but it caused some headaches that he probably didn't need.

EDIT: typo.

 

[Old Dog]

Sooo... I kinda get a kick out of threads where the OP contains an informative video, then down the road someone says

Didn't watch the video, I can smell grift when it's being easily seen.

but continues posting numerous remarks arguing against the topic's premise. Which really, if one did view the entire video, actually only pointed out a few things that could potentially come up during a trial, and be used against a defendant.

Referring to Massad Ayoob as "controversial?" Hmm. What do you have against the man? And "ayoobists" (count me in the club, I guess)? We're "ayoobists" if we believe the man has more credibility than anonymous internet posters? I don't know anyone who's taken MAG20 or MAG40 and said they didn't enjoy the classes or learn anything... He's a superb trainer who's also been instrumental in helping many, many folks who've gone to trial after defensive shootings. Got a great sense of humor as well.

There was nothing "fear-mongering" about the OP video. A trial lawyer with murder case experience providing some cautionary advice. That's all. Provocateurs and Gaslighters? Whew!

What was this thread about again?

 

[AJC1]

So I'm government trained in the security of thermal nuclear weapons, no de-escalation, hostages don't mater, once the shooting starts its on until all threats are neutralized. What are they going to do with that. It's the government way, I didn't make this up or determin it was correct.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

We were told by some fools to qualify as marksmen only before deployment, so if we were told to wound and killed by accident that it wouldn't be our fault, LMAO.

We're never told to shoot to wound. Ever.

Buncha morons, those fools.

My first boat was a Lafayette class ballistic missile submarine back in the 80s. I got my Deadly Force checkout for my Ship's Qualification card from the Weapons Officer and we discussed scenarios and the seven times deadly force is authorized for use. One was him being held hostage topside by an armed intruder intent on credibly causing damage to the submarine and weapons systems. He made it abundantly clear that he fully expected me to shoot to kill, regardless of the hostage situation, and if it meant he had to die in the process, so be it. National security is NOT a joke.

So being told stupid stuff about "liability" over such issues as being told to "wound" and "killing by accident", that's political hogwash that has absolutely NO PLACE in the military's understanding and employment of deadly force.

Qualifying before deployment actually has more to do with ensuring sufficient people are actually qualified, and will remain qualified, for the duration of the deployment in order to meet the actual security requirements. It has nothing to do with what those "fools" you mentioned said.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

Buncha morons, those fools.

My first boat was a Lafayette class ballistic missile submarine back in the 80s. I got my Deadly Force checkout for my Ship's Qualification card from the Weapons Officer and we discussed scenarios and the seven times deadly force is authorized for use. One was him being held hostage topside by an armed intruder intent on credibly causing damage to the submarine and weapons systems. He made it abundantly clear that he fully expected me to shoot to kill, regardless of the hostage situation, and it it meant he had to die in the process, so be it. National security is NOT a joke.

So being told stupid stuff about "liability" over such issues as being told to "wound" and "killing by accident", that's political hogwash that has absolutely NO PLACE in the military's understanding and employment of deadly force.

Qualifying before deployment actually has more to do with ensuring sufficient people are actually qualified, and will remain qualified, for the duration of the deployment in order to meet the actual security requirements. It has nothing to do with what those "fools" you mentioned said.

Agreed.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Thanks, very interesting video! It sounds like the biggest takeaway is never pass up a chance to shut your mouth! I can understand that training could be used against you; after all, in our adversarial justice system pretty much anything & everything can. The first bar is that if you fail to get training and you're killed by an attacker it becomes moot for you. So as they say, get training. I really like the comments the woman made! Everyone screams about being "cancelled" and having a right to run your mouth but you don't have freedom for the consequences of your actions. It's probably a good idea not to post hundreds of pictures to Facebook of you with a carbine wearing a shirt that says INFIDEL. Maybe consider applying the 'gray man' tactic to more than your clothes or going with a blue 5.11 instead of the black one.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I think people who zoom into particulars with respect to what the prosecution can look at are forgetting that it's the job of prosecution to gain a conviction. To that end, the prosecution will present ANYTHING in a light which supports this.

Focusing on particulars to the exclusion of a person's overall legal well-being is foolish. And here's a demonstration of what I'm trying to say.

If you have firearms training, then you're a "trained killer". If you DON'T have firearms training then you're an untrained danger to everybody.

People go on and on about these things all the time. Right now, the subject is training. But we've all likely seen it with respect to ammunition type, factory vs handloaded ammunition, small caliber vs. large caliber, magnum vs. non-magnum, higher capacity magazines vs. lower capacity magazines, and more.

Regardless of what people may say about any and all of these things, the big picture thing to focus on is what the jurisdictional laws ACTUALLY SAY AND MEAN. This is the primary concern. Your absolute, best defense is to understand these laws and do your best to act within them. If you do, then you are in a very strong position because you have the laws backing you up. If the facts of the case are also on your side, then you have the facts AND the law backing you up.

Even so, that doesn't guarantee you won't go to trial over any given shooting. It doesn't mean you can't be convicted. But it DOES mean the State has to work one heck of a lot harder to gain a conviction than if you WEREN'T acting within the scope of the laws. Or if you are in a gray area.

 

[ClicheBro]

People go on and on about these things all the time. Right now, the subject is training. But we've all likely seen it with respect to ammunition type, factory vs handloaded ammunition, small caliber vs. large caliber, magnum vs. non-magnum, higher capacity magazines vs. lower capacity magazines, and more.

And you have autists on the internet parroting this everywhere. Remember when the government could search your house because you owned NFA Items? Or when you couldn't have an AR pistol upper in the same room as a rifle lower? LOL

 

[Old Dog]

And you have autists on the internet parroting this everywhere.

What do people with autism have to do with this topic?

 

[bdickens]

We were told by some fools to qualify as marksmen only before deployment, so if we were told to wound and killed by accident that it wouldn't be our fault, LMAO.

I'm gonna go ahead and call BS....