About a month ago there was a thread regarding the advisability of taking a class or classes with one of the nationally recognized firearms training institutes. There was the concern about whether such a course of action might go for or against you if you were involved in a shooting incident. I won't elaborate on it because anyone interested can go look it up.
However, I got to wondering along the same lines about how participating in a shooting sport might affect one in court.
A quarter of a century ago, I shot IPSC for a couple of years and dropped out because it became anything but "practical", with race guns and exotic courses of fire being the norm. I just lost interest.
Recently I have become interested in IDPA, thinking it might be more of what I had been looking for in the first place.
But -- one thing bothers me -- should I ever have the great misfortune to have to use a firearm in self defense, might participation in IDPA be a legal liability?
Scenario:
Input?
However, I got to wondering along the same lines about how participating in a shooting sport might affect one in court.
A quarter of a century ago, I shot IPSC for a couple of years and dropped out because it became anything but "practical", with race guns and exotic courses of fire being the norm. I just lost interest.
Recently I have become interested in IDPA, thinking it might be more of what I had been looking for in the first place.
But -- one thing bothers me -- should I ever have the great misfortune to have to use a firearm in self defense, might participation in IDPA be a legal liability?
Scenario:
- Assume I justifiably shoot someone. Details not relevant for this discussion's sake.
- The prosecutor and/or a civil attorney from the sleazeball firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe says:
- "The defendant has been training for just this opportunity to shoot someone! Just itching to, as it were. He's got a cowboy mentaility as evidenced by the fact that he participates in a sport where shooting targets meant to simulate humans is the goal."
Input?