Truly Realistic Training

[OldMarksman]

One thing that we do have that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender.

What has given you that impression?

[Ghost1958]

I believe only 3 states actually forbid arrest, or even detain in custody by statute.
There could be a few more but not many.

[OldMarksman]

I believe only 3 states actually forbid arrest, or even detain in custody by statute.

Specifics?

I seriously doubt that there are any.

[JohnKSa]

Ok folks, if claims are going to be made about various state laws, there needs to be a citation of the specific law in question accompanying the claim. Laws can sometimes be counterintuitive and specific wording and minor details matter. Trying to work from memory or hearsay can result in incorrect information being disseminated and nobody wants that. Even if the law is accurately summarized, minor details or specific wording can make a big difference and an issue that the person summarizing the law glosses over because he/she might not consider it important could be critical to a person reading the summary.

Providing a citation shouldn't be a problem as nearly all state statutes are online these days.

So with that in mind:

In Washington state it is not illegal. Agreeing to a physical confrontation is not considered assault or battery. I don't pretend to know about other States but I try to stay up on the laws in Washington.

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

Here in Texas, as long as you join a dojo, boxing club, etc... and the 'fight' is there, it ain't mutually agreed combat. It's a 'class' and 'sparring'.

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

As far as SD goes you can even start a fight. (in KY)

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

One thing that we do have (in KY) that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender.

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

[Ghost1958]

Krs chapter 503.

[JohnKSa]

I assume that your reply was in response to a request for the statute that you claim states that police in KY may not arrest a person "once a claim of self defense has been made".

I found this link to the KY statutes.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39367

Since you provided only a chapter reference, I read through the chapter trying to find a relevant section. About 2/3 of the way through the chapter I found section 503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force -- Exceptions

Section (2) of 503.085 states:

A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

I assume that this (specifically the highlighted portion) is the law you are referring to.

The law does not state or imply that a claim of self-defense exempts a person from arrest.

The law does prevent arrests when there is no probable cause indicating that a law was broken. In other words, police are prevented from routinely arresting people involved in use of force incidents. There must be some probable cause indicating that they broke the law before they can be arrested.

If there is probable cause indicating that the use of force was unlawful, then the law certainly allows the person to be arrested regardless of any claims of self-defense that have been made.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...One thing that we do have that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender. They may use normal investigative technique but unless there is substantial evidence the self defense claim is a lie the defender will not spend one minute in police custody or be taken to the station etc.....

And of course you're wrong.

John quoted the statute. The test for justifying immediate arrest is "probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." That's far different from "substantial evidence that the self defense claim is a lie."

The generally applicable definition in law of "probable cause" is:

...sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed....

As the Supreme Court of Kentucky noted when affirming a second degree murder conviction against a plea of self defense and claim of immunity under 503.085 (Commonwealth v. Lemons, 437 S.W.3d 708 (Ky., 2014), at 714-715):

...although those in the criminal justice system are familiar with the standard of probable cause, “it often eludes definition.” Id. However, we also noted that we had recently used the definition provided by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983): “[P]robable cause is a fluid concept-turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”...

And later (Lemon, at 715):

...“Probable cause has ... been defined as ‘reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’ ” Commonwealth v. Jones, 217 S.W.3d 190, 200 (Ky.2006) citing United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir.1990)....

[Ghost1958]

I cited what you requested.

You are apparently more familiar with the laws of my state than I and leos here are.

I never stated a self defense claim exempted a shooter from arrest.
But unless there is substantial physical or witness evidence that the shooting was wrongful there will be no arrest or detainment in custody.

Happens frequently here.

But I will now to your greater knowledge of KY law and how it is applied as gleaned from California.

Carry on.

[OldMarksman]

I never stated a self defense claim exempted a shooter from arrest.

Just what, then, did you mean by "One thing that we do have (in KY) that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender"?

[Ghost1958]

503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force --
Exceptions.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and
503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution
and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force
was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the
performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself
in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection,
the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and
charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of
force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force
that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss
of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action
brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from
prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 6, effective July 12, 2006.


Attempt to clarify.
Police here may not use the fact a shooting has occurred as probable cause to arrest as in most states and then up to the defender to prove hexes justifed up the legal pipeline.
There will be some evidence to indicate the shoot was wrongful or no arrest detainment or prosecution will occur.
The fact there was a shooting here is not enough for probable cause as in the majority of states.

Real example from last summer in my area.
Two men have an argument and verbal threats are exchanged then they part company. Both know the other is armed.

20 min later they encounter each other on a rural road. One shoots the other putting him in the hospital for a month. Claims self defense because of previous threats and knowledge the other was armed.
The man shot claims he was going past the shooters drive where the shooting occurred to visit another person on the same street.

Neither man was ever charged or detained nor arrested because SD claim could not be disputed by evidence and was legally reasonable here.

The man shot though he had also made threatscand was armed could not be proven to actually have attempted to harm the shooter and nor charged either.

[OldMarksman]

But unless there is substantial physical or witness evidence that the shooting was wrongful there will be no arrest or detainment in custody.

The statute very clearly uses the term "probable cause". That is not at all the same as "substantial evidence".

Substantial evidence falls between probable cause (the standard in the statute that you cited) and preponderance of the evidence.

[OldMarksman]

Attempt to clarify.
Police here may not use the fact a shooting has occurred as probable cause to arrest as in most states and then up to the defender to prove hexes justifed up the legal pipeline.
There will be some evidence to indicate the shoot was wrongful or no arrest detainment or prosecution will occur.
The fact there was a shooting here is not enough for probable cause as in the majority of states.

Where on earth do you get your description "as in most states"?

To effect an arrest, the state must establish the existence of probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful--that is, that a crime has been committed.

Do you know of any states, other than perhaps Ohio, in which that is not true?

[Ghost1958]

Haven't learned to quote here yet.

In short, in a majority of states the fact there was a shooting, unless it is cut and dried unquestionably SD the defender will automatically be arrested and it's up to him to then prove the shoot was justified.

In KY and a few other states the fact there was a shooting does not give LE probable cause to arrest and prohibits it by law if a SD claim is made.

It's then on LE to provide evidence that the shooting was wrongful to have probable cause to detain or arrest.
Lacking that any detainment or arrest is prohibited by statute and actionable against the officers doing so.

LE simply doesn't lay itself open to law suits here at least by summarily arresting someone claiming self defence unless it pretty plainly wasn't justified by some witness or physical evidence.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

....But unless there is substantial physical or witness evidence that the shooting was wrongful there will be no arrest or detainment in custody....

Again, substantial evidence isn't the standard under the statute. The test is probable cause, and that is a different legal standard.

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...But I will now to your greater knowledge of KY law and how it is applied as gleaned from California....

The reality is that I have much greater knowledge of law than you do. I'm a lawyer with 30+ years experience practicing before retiring ten years ago. I know how to read statutes and do the legal research. And during the course of my practice I've had occasion to deal with the laws of many State, as well as federal law, because I've had clients with interests and dealings in many States.

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...Police here may not use the fact a shooting has occurred as probable cause to arrest as in most states and then up to the defender to prove hexes justifed up the legal pipeline.
There will be some evidence to indicate the shoot was wrongful or no arrest detainment or prosecution will occur.
The fact there was a shooting here is not enough for probable cause as in the majority of states. ...

Really? And you know this how? Can you cite case law (decisions of appellate courts) supporting that?

Like many lay people you have a poor understanding of the law. Shooting another person is, on its face, wrongful. There must be evidence supporting an inference that one's intentional act of violence against another person was legally justified.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...Real example from last summer in my area.
Two men have an argument and verbal threats are exchanged then they part company. Both know the other is armed.

20 min later they encounter each other on a rural road. One shoots the other putting him in the hospital for a month. Claims self defense because of previous threats and knowledge the other was armed.
The man shot claims he was going past the shooters drive where the shooting occurred to visit another person on the same street.

Neither man was ever charged or detained nor arrested because SD claim could not be disputed by evidence and was legally reasonable here. ....

What hogwash.

These sorts of anecdotes are completely useless for understanding the legal issues. You can not possibly know or understand the actual reasons for the result because you have insufficient information.

There would have been an investigation. And without knowing what that investigation determined and what the evidence was, we can't possibly know how the matter was analyzed by the prosecutor or the bases for his apparent decision not to prosecute.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...In short, in a majority of states the fact there was a shooting, unless it is cut and dried unquestionably SD the defender will automatically be arrested and it's up to him to then prove the shoot was justified. ..

Cite evidence supporting that contention.

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...In KY and a few other states the fact there was a shooting does not give LE probable cause to arrest and prohibits it by law if a SD claim is made....

Cite legal authority (appellate court decisions) supporting that contention.

Originally Posted by Ghost1958

...It's then on LE to provide evidence that the shooting was wrongful to have probable cause to detain or arrest.
Lacking that any detainment or arrest is prohibited by statute and actionable against the officers doing so....

Cite legal authority (appellate court decisions) supporting that contention.

Be advised that we take a dim view of posting unsupported claims on matters of law. Comments and opinions should be based on legal principles and supported where appropriate with reference to legal authority, including court decisions, statutes and scholarly articles.

Bad information on legal issues can get people into trouble.

[OldMarksman]

In short, in a majority of states the fact there was a shooting, unless it is cut and dried unquestionably SD the defender will automatically be arrested and it's up to him to then prove the shoot was justified.

No. In all states (except perhaps Ohio, where it gets a little complicated), the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In KY...the fact there was a shooting does not give LE probable cause to arrest and prohibits it by law if a SD claim is made.

You are mixing two things.

Do you really believe that there are states in which a person can be arrested for committing a crime unless there is probable cause showing that he did commit a crime? Does the Fourth Amendment not apply in some states?

Do you really think that someone who claims self defense cannot be arrested (think about it--"they all say that"), or are you saying that unless someone does so claim, he can be arrested?

It's then on LE to provide evidence that the shooting was wrongful to have probable cause to detain or arrest. Lacking that any detainment or arrest is prohibited by statute and actionable against the officers doing so.

Yep. Fourth Amendment. Applies in all states.

[stephen426]

I hate to say it, but you guys are way of topic. While I understand it is important to separate opinions from verifiable facts, two mods picking apart a senior member's comments is not what I believe TFL is about. We are not dispensing legal advice and a simple disclaimer stating as much should be sufficient.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by stephen426

I hate to say it, but you guys are way of topic. While I understand it is important to separate opinions from verifiable facts, two mods picking apart a senior member's comments is not what I believe TFL is about. We are not dispensing legal advice and a simple disclaimer stating as much should be sufficient.

Nonetheless, specious information on legal topics will be challenged. Bad information can get folks into trouble.

[Skadoosh]

While I understand it is important to separate opinions from verifiable facts, two mods picking apart a senior member's comments is not what I believe TFL is about.

Over the years I have seen more and more of what I have come to see as moderator condescension on this forum. It is why I frequent TFL less and less nowadays.

[OldMarksman]

I hate to say it, but you guys are way of topic.

Yes, the discussion has strayed from the subject of realistic training.

It started to veer when someone implied that realistic training might take the form of unlawful aggressive acts in public. The discussion then went on to discuss different aspects of defenses of justification.

I started to stop the tangential discussion, but it became clear that there was value in discussing that subject also, just to make sure that no one went away seriously misled.

While I understand it is important to separate opinions from verifiable facts, two mods picking apart a senior member's comments is not what I believe TFL is about.

The point here is that misunderstandings involving the justification of lawful use of force can lead other readers to accept and believe things that are not true, with very bad effects.

The use of force, the threat of deadly force, and the use of deadly force are very serious subjects.

We are not dispensing legal advice and a simple disclaimer stating as much should be sufficient.

It goes without saying that one cannot provide legal advice on the basis of abstract and hypothetical discussions, and that legal advice can be provided only by one's attorney.

However, it is incumbent upon is to provide the best understanding possible about the subject of the lawful use of force.

Not everyone can avail himself of a Mas Ayoob's MAG-20 classroom course, or attend any of Andrew Branca's state specific seminars,but we really do not want our members to obtain their educations as lessons learned in the criminal justice system.

We have a list of relevant articles in the L&CR Forum here. Some of the issues that have been raised in this thread have been covered there, and we try to keep it robust and as complete as possible.

I respectfully suggest that it would be with taking the time to peruse those articles thoughtfully. That's not directed at anyone. Heck, even some attorneys with offices within a mile or two of where I sit could use some additional knowledge in these areas.

[Frank Ettin]

Let's have no further off-topic excursions. The question on the floor is:

...What I would like to know is whether there are any classes or systems where the concepts and equipment from paintball and/or laser-tag have been adapted to create a training class in which the targets can (literally, but non-lethally) "shoot back"?

[Ghost1958]

I'm sure someone someplace has at least tried it.

Most I've ever heard of myself use air soft or simunitions. Simulations being much preferable imo.

[stephen426]

So back on the topic...

Can simunition rounds be fired out of most guns (does it have the power to cycle the slide of most semi-auto guns) or does some kind of modification need to be done (Special barrel and weaker springs).

Regardless of how realistic the training is, I still believe there is a degree of "this is still training" so the fear and adrenaline is not the same. Hopefully, with enough training and trigger time, muscle memory develops, we fall back on our training and adrenaline works in our favor.

I've already had it happen once where I drew from the center console of car in the amount of time it took someone to get from the hood of my car to my driver's side window. I had three other people in the car with me and they were shocked how fast I reacted and moved. Turned out to be a drunk college kid trying to be funny, but it is good to know I was ABLE to move fast enough to neutralize the threat if needed.

[OldMarksman]

I think one can probably surmise from the first two dozen posts in this thread that no one here knows of any.

However, Posts 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 describe what should be viable alternatives.

[OldMarksman]

Regardless of how realistic the training is, I still believe there is a degree of "this is still training" so the fear and adrenaline is not the same. Hopefully, with enough training and trigger time, muscle memory develops, we fall back on our training and adrenaline works in our favor.

Yes indeed--good input.

That is also true in air combat training, airline pilot training, powerplant emergency training, and a lot of other things.