|
MarkCO,
Deficiency of training is another neophyte term that needs to go. Every state of which I am away has minimum standards of firearms training. Cops have to demonstrate meeting or exceeding minimum standards, or they won't be officers long. These standards are objective and are assuredly reviewed by states' attorneys general for being legally defensible.
In CA, CA POST determines minimum firearms training standards. Judicial notice confirms that officers meeting or exceeding these standards are proficient.
No law enforcement agency would allow an officer in the field who has failed to meet any POST standard of training. To do so would expose an agency to huge liability, assuredly including punitive damages. Hell, cops have to meet minimum standards of First Aid & CPR, or they are not allowed in the field.
I'd like for you to cite one case for me where an officer met his state's minimum firearms standards but was found by any court to be deficient.
When cops qualify, it is documented in duplicate. The cop keeps a copy and the other goes in his personnel file.
It is fallacy to assume deficiency of training should a cop be unable to stop an assailant who then commits murder. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to exclude all possible variables of a law enforcement shooting and isolating nebulous "deficiency of training" as causal? Mark, it is too ridiculous to even consider.
How is tactical overwhelming presence of force when trying to arrest a dangerous felon detrimental? This is the first I've heard of it. Maybe you know something I don't. So I'm willing to learn. Teach me.
|