Rob:
The court I refer to was in relation to how training was conducted, not the final result. It appears that you have run the two together, but then I was not real clear either.
"Our duty is to make people safer, not to make them (or our training) court-proof." I certainly agree on the safer part, but would add that our goal is make them technically and tactically proficient. After you have been in a few court rooms, you'll come to realize that
nothing is "court-proof."
"an eye toward future oversight/second guessing" refers to administration of training, with a small nod towards what the courts might say. Of importance is how the training is executed and it's relevance to the real world. The best training won't be worth much if it fails review by users at various levels.
Let me clarify with some examples and explanation.
The most realistic training in the world, if poorly executed or administered, won't have a chance of remaining a viable program. Quite aside from the court room, the training provider that causes second thoughts in the administrative chain hurts themselves, and other providers. There is a good chance that that provider will lose their audience for cause.
Let's say, for example, a national provider of high quality training fails to address some very real client concerns on the execution of their training products. A client's administrator believes in the quality of the training provider, so goes to great lengths to insure that previous shortcomings are addressed and not repeated. That administrator meets with the highest echelon of the providers administration and gets assurances of better future performance. The providers administration becomes truly concerned over these past problems, acknowledging that they'd be a PR & legal nightmare for the provider. Thus assured, the client administrator goes to great lengths to sell the providers programs to their employer and contracts for multiple training products. The program is promoted via compatibility to the existing training and standards, certifications provided, commonality on a national basis, accepted by CLEOs around the US, positive public perception and a foundation palatable to risk management folks.
The training is provided. Quality skews to both ends of the spectrum. Previous problems return. Provider cannot even honor their own contract.
They missed the X-ring. They didn't learn from it.
Client determines to spend their training dollars elsewhere in the future.
Client representatives are part of a national discussion group that brings training clients together. This group represents the higher echelons of training administration and purchasing authority. Members depend on each other for a frank and honest appraisal of training providers. The provider in the above example comes up for discussion. The client administrator who went to bat for the provider is asked to comment on their experience.
What do you think those comments will/should be?
Even though the provider appears to represent a good product, they are not likely to be invited back to certain training venues. Those that continue to use such training vendors now have prior knowledge of their shortcomings.
I have long been a champion of real world relevant training. I have required additional education for instructors, challenged instructors to improve their program (and themselves) and always given them ownership and interest in those efforts. It was always essential that an instructor be able to defend their product to some of those mentioned above, which if one can, the court room becomes much easier when that time rolls around. Administrators of training are under no less a burden.
You have my agreement on:
Quote:
|
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.
|
But don't get lost in that. Realize also that good training that is ineffectively delivered, is still going to be ineffective.
Kilroy...
...was here