[Naro]

"...defense of justification for the use of force or the threat of force will depend upon whether the triers of fact will conclude that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done the same thing, knowing what the actor knew at the time.
Some key elements of justification are things that are taught in training."

I'd like to see some case law on where the reasonable person standard was held to be the "trained" person. So I, respectfully, think it would be a somewhat risky defense strategy to proffer the defendant's training resume. To do so seems to welcome challenges and nit-picking beyond the "reasonable person" standard. And isn't it the trier of fact, and not the testifying expert, who determines "reasonable person"?

"If you need help on that, let us know."
I'm not sure I need help just because my opinion differs from yours.