[OldMarksman]

Posted by daddyo: My students have so far been able to understand that the purpose of going animal is to make them understand that they should be prepared to get as violent as necessary and then stop that elevated violence once the threat has been diminished.

Great. Wonderful.

The problem is, the state has been given a basis for trying to prove otherwise.

My point is that you guys have done worst to include actually arguing why it is wise to decieve.

...your active lessons on how to deceive could make you less believable.

... and you for teaching folks how to deceive. How to mask or cloak your true thoughts.

Suggesting that advising people to refrain from creating evidence that could be used against them as indications of state of mind is in any way a means of deception--unless, of course, there is reason to believe that the purpose is in fact to conceal a criminal state of mind--is illogical and baseless.

Saying something like "don't say anything dumb" is just good advice.

Kept in context with "keep your head" return to normal asap, I will be just fine.

there are two aspects to that.

The first is that the prosecutor can repeat the first part only, without the second, over and over, while your attorney will have only limited opportunity to counter the argument in his or her closing remarks. And the prosecutor will speak last.

The other problem is that cited by Dr. Meyer:

...well trained people don't go 'animal' which implies an unreasoned rage. They respond quickly with a perceptual and cognitive action paradigm that they trained into. We hear the mantra - you will resort to your training. Experts mention how in a gun fight their training guided them through.

In cases with unreasoned use of force - for example, sympathetic or contagious shooting of an innocent - that might be described as 'going animal'.

I could make your cornered cat look like pure evil if allowed to give you only one side.

He trained to become a cornered cat. A vicious crazed animal willing to do anything necessary to survive. Willing to use all the force available in an explosive violent burst. A cornered cat doesn't care how big you are, it doesn't care if you were bluffing, when it decides its time to act it gives everything it has when half of what it has would have sufficed.

Sure sir a cornered cat will stop when you are no longer a threat but how much extra force did it deploy before making that decision?

The term "Cornered Cat" has been widely employed in self defense literature and training for a very long time.

With my description "go animal" I am essentially saying the same thing only I add the need to return to normal non violent activity as soon as the threat has ended. After all I'm not a cat. I'm not evil. I am being forced into violence and my training dictates to do what is necessary to survive then return to peace.

The problem is that what you intend to convey and how the general public will perceive it may well be two different things.

You have been advised of that here by several very highly regarded professionals on the subject.

A defendant trained under the constructs put forth by pax will have easy access to expert witnesses who will be able to counter any criticisms of the concept. Your students will only have, at best, the potential of bringing you in to explain what it was that you meant to convey.

Your cat will often use more force than was necessary. ... Part of a cats defense is to be explosive and to keep the juice going well after it could easily flee.

You are confusing the idea of a cat fighting for dominance or for territory with that of a cornered cat, well understood by most people and well described by pax in public literature. And her description is available for use in a trial if needed.

Did you read my discription of what go animal means? Must be ready to become extremely violent without hesitation. Hardly turning off higher order thinking skills. My description focuses on the need to be willing to fight hard and violently and without hesitation.

Yes, you have explained here what you intend for it to mean.

Dr. Meyer has offered a different point of view.

Dr. Glenn E. Meyer, PhD, is full professor in the Psychology Department at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. He received his doctorate in 1975 and has written numerous professional articles and books in the areas of visual perception, cognition and statistics. ... A convert to the world of defensive firearms, he has been an NTI practitioner & has studied with several well known trainers.

Would you really want your students to be faced with the expert testimony of someone like that?