Sure.. I always quote Alan Brosnan from TEES, who says that if you shoot 1000 rounds in a day and you miss the X-ring with one shot... that was your one opportunity to learn from.
At any rate, I understand what you are saying and agree that we have to learn from mistakes.. mine here was certainly not taking a closer look at how the photos would be viewed and not staging the recreation properly.
As a side note, I had to call "SAFE" today to stop an active Force-on-Force because a student had jammed a gun muzzle (sim) between my throat guard and helmet and was about to stamp my chin with a UTM round. During the Extreme Close Quarters Shooting courses at VTC, there is no way to abide by standard "acceptable distance" protocols and actually train realistically. My students love the course, it is probably our most popular offering, it is generating most of the interest from the high end military students we have and is not likely to go away because I am concerned about how others might view the safety protocols. They satisfy me, the owner of the facility, our insurance people and the students, how they look to a third party isn't a good litmus test.
Thanks for reminding us, on the magazine side, that we should consider explaining or avoiding inconsistencies with the "status quo."
I just re-read your post, particularly the part about "an eye toward future oversight/second guessing" and should mention that I think training NEEDS to be developed for what happens in the street or during any critiical incident, not for what happens in court. Our duty is to make people safer, not to make them (or our training) court-proof. This is not "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" bravado.... Politically Prepared Combatives Training that worries about court and cost before lives and effectiveness gets people hurt by causing hesitation, inefficiency and delayed response to in real situations.