Hugger-4641
Member
I'm gonna worry about these consequences after the fact if I'm ever faced with the situation.
What do the lawyers here think about this?
What do the lawyers here think about this?
Can your training be used against you?
- Thread starter Hugger-4641
- Start date
- Status
I'm going to have to be of the opinion that I would personally rather have the training to allow me to effectively defend myself and/or my family in the moment and then maybe having to explain why I wanted to be prepared for this unlikely scenario to a jury of my peers later, versus not having that training and potentially having my family on the witness stand at my murderer's, or even worse me on the stand at their murderer's, trial.
Atavar
Member
The same question used to come up with trained empty hand experts. Quite a few prosecutors called a trained fighter a deadly weapon to obscure the self defense defense.
Apparently a trained victim should be able to stop any threat without hurting the attacker.
Apparently a trained victim should be able to stop any threat without hurting the attacker.
One of teh better 2A legal channels IMO.
Towards the end of the video they offer a solution. DON'T talk or blabber about your training. What a concept
But if I don't post my every move and over-exaggerate my skillz how do I get all those likes on the "gram"
Last edited:
dweis
Member
While training history could be introduced as evidence of the ability to engage in self defense with greater skill, the question in my mind is how and the nature of intent would be established. Did I train with the intention of being able to better defend myself or with the intention of being more lethal? Both prospective intentions seem to have a connection. They seem mutually inclusive. If I want to have better skill at exercising my right to self-defense don’t I basically have to become more capable of being lethal? I can see a prosecutor pushing the training as an aggravating factor. And I can see a defense attorney turning that training as a reasonable action to improve ability to self-defend. My conclusion is agreement with the attorneys in the video. Keep your training level to yourself. And if the need arises follow a bit of other good legal advice — don’t say anything until you have an attorney.
gwpercle
Member
I don't "Train" shooting is my hobby , I competed in NRA Bullseye Match for over 20 years .
We had a formal league and shot on Tuesday nights . Many times I practiced on Thursday nights.
You shoot slow fire , timed fire and rapid fire legs with 22 cal , 38 cal and 45 cal . The targets are round bullseye targets . The shooting is done over several weeks ... when all the legs have been completed the scores are tallied . The person with the highest aggregate score wins the trophy .
I don't "train" , I shoot as a recreational hobby .
Gary
We had a formal league and shot on Tuesday nights . Many times I practiced on Thursday nights.
You shoot slow fire , timed fire and rapid fire legs with 22 cal , 38 cal and 45 cal . The targets are round bullseye targets . The shooting is done over several weeks ... when all the legs have been completed the scores are tallied . The person with the highest aggregate score wins the trophy .
I don't "train" , I shoot as a recreational hobby .
Gary
James Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2019
- Messages
- 167
As long as your interest search history is how to defend yourself, it’s not the same as how to be an aggressor. Optics I feel matter more than the actual event
N555
Member
How would they know unless you tell them or you are wearing a shirt that says "bla bla bla certified trainer", have pictures of your self on social media at some training place and you should already have a lawyer on retainer.
RickD427
Member
To give a very direct reply to the question, "YES", your training can be used against you.
But also keep in mind that your absence of training can also be used against you. It goes both ways.
The real danger in the OP's posting is not the suggestion that you shouldn't train. The danger in the OP's posting is the perpetuation of the thought that one should conduct their affairs in a manner that would negate only one legal theory of liability. Every law school has a class titled "Trial Advocacy." The purpose of that class is to train their students how to present cases in court, in a way that is most advantageous to their clients. Please note the object is not to give the most effective, or balanced, presentation of the case.
The agency that I retired from has defended hundreds of use-of-force cases at trial, and overall with some pretty good results, but also with some very significant losses. Nearly all of the claims involve allegations that the deputy's training was inadequate, and also that the supervision given to the involved deputy(s) was inadequate. Such claims can be very persuasive. You can never "measure" the effect of training or supervision that was never provided, and folks tend to believe that more of either would make a difference. Once a plaintiff's attorney has successfully transported the jury from the real world, into a fantasy world (where they can make-up the desired outcomes), their case becomes quite easy.
But if you try to counter that strategy by changing your conduct, you're doomed. The next case will be one where your alternative conduct becomes faulted. Then you have to change your conduct again, and pretty soon you're like the cat chasing it's own tail in your effort to control liability.
The Los Angeles Police Department recently had a shooting, and lawsuit, that exemplifies this. They also have a long history of defending suits, and where issues of training and supervision were at issue, and with a long history of allegations being made that training levels were inadequate.
Then there was a shooting involving a officer who was extremely well trained in the defensive use of handguns, and who was featured on the cover of Dillon's "Blue Press" magazine, along with an article describing her prowess with the handgun. Now here, is where that "Trial Advocacy" class kicks in. The plaintiff's attorney argued that this was an officer who was actively seeking to become involved in a shooting, as evidenced by the extreme amount of time she spent in apparent preparation for the event.
The best advice here is not to seek refuge from the latest legal attack, but rather be able to fully justify the actions that you take and to ensure that you can effectively communicate the reasons for those actions to the trier of fact.
But also keep in mind that your absence of training can also be used against you. It goes both ways.
The real danger in the OP's posting is not the suggestion that you shouldn't train. The danger in the OP's posting is the perpetuation of the thought that one should conduct their affairs in a manner that would negate only one legal theory of liability. Every law school has a class titled "Trial Advocacy." The purpose of that class is to train their students how to present cases in court, in a way that is most advantageous to their clients. Please note the object is not to give the most effective, or balanced, presentation of the case.
The agency that I retired from has defended hundreds of use-of-force cases at trial, and overall with some pretty good results, but also with some very significant losses. Nearly all of the claims involve allegations that the deputy's training was inadequate, and also that the supervision given to the involved deputy(s) was inadequate. Such claims can be very persuasive. You can never "measure" the effect of training or supervision that was never provided, and folks tend to believe that more of either would make a difference. Once a plaintiff's attorney has successfully transported the jury from the real world, into a fantasy world (where they can make-up the desired outcomes), their case becomes quite easy.
But if you try to counter that strategy by changing your conduct, you're doomed. The next case will be one where your alternative conduct becomes faulted. Then you have to change your conduct again, and pretty soon you're like the cat chasing it's own tail in your effort to control liability.
The Los Angeles Police Department recently had a shooting, and lawsuit, that exemplifies this. They also have a long history of defending suits, and where issues of training and supervision were at issue, and with a long history of allegations being made that training levels were inadequate.
Then there was a shooting involving a officer who was extremely well trained in the defensive use of handguns, and who was featured on the cover of Dillon's "Blue Press" magazine, along with an article describing her prowess with the handgun. Now here, is where that "Trial Advocacy" class kicks in. The plaintiff's attorney argued that this was an officer who was actively seeking to become involved in a shooting, as evidenced by the extreme amount of time she spent in apparent preparation for the event.
The best advice here is not to seek refuge from the latest legal attack, but rather be able to fully justify the actions that you take and to ensure that you can effectively communicate the reasons for those actions to the trier of fact.
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
Concealed Carry training should include some legal training, local laws and the like. Nothing wrong with that! Most states require at least basic lethal force knowledge in their CCW courses. I guess advanced skill set training could be questioned. At the same time it could eliminate much of the “accidental” line of questions as introduce mindset issues. The whole “what have you been preparing for”. Truth is though nobody really knows. So many variables in so many different locals that one shooting rarely is like the next.
Already under discussion here: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...d-how-it-sometimes-plays-out-in-court.911384/
- Status
