Do you "Document" your training?

[Targa]

By this logic we shouldn't have any training as no one could hold us accountable

Nope, not what I am saying and yes logically documentation should work in your favor but we are far from a logical society and the judicial system is no different. Documentation that should show you to be a reasonable, responsible citizen, which it very well could do, can also become documentation portraying you to be a planning, bloodthirsty vigilante that has just been biding their time for a moment like this.

I also don't agree that the sole reason agencies have their officers receive training is to remove themselves from liability and not to improve their abilities.

Record keeping serves two purposes, agency liability and POST requirements. The training itself is to improve their abilities.

[TunnelRat]

I mentioned the possibility of documentation being used against you in the very first response of this thread. It's nothing I'm not aware of. Many things we do, including being in possession of a gun in the first place, could be used against us. There are two conflicts in a shooting. The shooting and then the aftermath, which may involve a trial. Having a narrative for the second part and being able to craft a story is essential.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Targa

I would suggest that the more documentation found about your training level, the higher the standard you could be held. Law enforcement agencies keep meticulous records of their officers training, not for the officers benefit but to lesson the liability of that officers agency in the event of a critical incident.

So good for cops, bad for "citizens. Sounds like something a liberal would come up with. If documentation reduces a LEOs liability, then it does the same for everyone else.

[FireForged]

So good for cops, bad for "citizens. Sounds like something a liberal would come up with. If documentation reduces a LEOs liability, then it does the same for everyone else.

Marko.. professional LEOs are not held to a laymans standard to begin with and neither are medical professionals. Professionals are expected to have a certain knowledge base and having less can be seen as negligent. If involved in a unpleasant legal entanglement why would a citizen want to be held to a higher standard regarding their decisions or actions? I am curious

I am a huge proponent of training but I am not going to wave a flag made of training certificates or beg someone to filter my action by means of anything other than a common mans standard.

Among many reasons, LEOs generally keep records of their training because 1. There is a required standard to training which is mandated by law. 2. A person or organization can be expected to maintain a certain competence in regards to tasks they are expected ( as a matter of duty) to perform. Essentially, "I am performing a job and I know what I am doing". 3. More training generally fosters less bad decisions and higher potential to handle complex situation is a manner conducive to a positive outcome for everyone, thereby avoiding unpleasant legal entanglements and bolstering public esteem.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Rather than delete it, does everything have to be 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'?

Give it a rest, For God's sake. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are necessarily of one political part of the spectrum and that usage usual means you don't even know the nuances of the term.

[Targa]

Mark, how in the world did you come to that conclusion with what I said? I was pointing out that documentation is an agencies CYA for an officers decision. It enables the agency to point out if the officer followed policy or didn’t in which case they (The Agency) can wash their hands of that officer for violating the documented training they had provided. I didnt suggest that it eases the burden on an officer, quite the opposite. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.

[peterg7]

I keep my certificates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OldMarksman]

There is one key way in which such documentation may help a civilian..

The success or failure of a defense of justification may hinge upon what the actor knew at the time. Examples: if the actor knew that experts believe that drawing a gun is prudent when the assailant is within a patellar difference, or if the actor had been made aware of objective knowledge that multiple hits would likely be required tp stop an attacker timely, evidence of that knowledge might help against criticism of his or her actions on those regards.

But that evidence would have to be documented at the time and sent, stamped, and stored sealed so hat it cannot be argued that it was fabricated ex post facto.

[FireForged]

are you saying you feel like the accused has the burden to prove when he learned something? If someone doesn't believe me, doesn't it fall to them to prove that I didn't know it at the time.

But that evidence would have to be documented at the time and sent, stamped, and stored sealed so hat it cannot be argued that it was fabricated ex post facto.

if they want to make such a claim, they can.. but where is the evidence?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's my take. If you do have extensive training it will come out. It may be brought up at trial as this has been done at some cases. The best trainers can testify that you are not nuts (some expense entailed - they may not want expert witness fees but want travel). There is expert lawyer opinion that quality training can be used by a lawyer expert in SD issues to make a favorable presentation of you.

Training that is oriented toward 'shoot 'em' and violent, macho, posturing rhetoric may be brought up (it has been done, IIRC) to your detriment. Shoot them into the ground or Have a plan to kill everyone in the room - may not sound so good to a jury of non-aficionados.

Since my training and participation is well known, it is moot point for me.

[DefinitelyNotACop]

Well to be honest, I work in LE so I naturally have to record all of my training for court and agency purposes. However, I do think it is useful. Not only for yourself so you can see how much you have actually done, but in the event something ever comes up and you need to be able to prove you have a varying level of training in firearms. I don't think it is necessary and many people go their entire lives without any formalized training. However, it is never a bad thing to document it, especially if you work in a field where you are likely to end up in court one day.

[shurshot]

My agency keeps my certifications on file.

As far as this comment...
"I lost a lot of respect for Mas when he shot that revolver up in the air trying to show trigger pull. careless."
That comment made me laugh. Even Gordan Ramsey burns toast on occasion. Doesn't mean he isn't a talented Chef!

[OldMarksman]

are you saying you feel like the accused has the burden to prove when he learned something? If someone doesn't believe me, doesn't it fall to them to prove that I didn't know it at the time.

o.
if they want to make such a claim, they can.. but where is the evidence?

Unless the judge rules that the "documentation" can be objectively authenticated in a manner that it meets the rules of evidence, he or she will not allow it to be admitted, and the jurors will not even know of its existence.

[Rachen]

Documenting and storing documents on training?

For job-related purposes: YES. Most of my professional job related training pertains to commercial driving, endorsements on commercial vehicles (airbrakes, doubles/triples, metal coil, Hazmat, etc...) I keep meticulous records on all of that, starting from when I had officially enrolled in truck-driver training. That is considered a supplement to my resume and something that I also provide as the "cherry on the cake" so to speak during recruitment to further present myself.

In shooting/defense wise, I have literally taught myself from the get-go. From when my Grand-Uncle had first taught me how to use a high-powered rifle and a bow, I have learned these skills in gradual increments. The "training programs" I have been in are exclusively demonstrations at martial arts symposiums and gun shows. I have also taught groups and classes on how to use a handgun, rifle, bow, and knives for different defensive situations. But these are not officially sanctioned programs and are more of displays and presentations during martial arts events.

If I ever have to apply for a job that involves armed security work or related, and I highly doubt it since I am a road hog, I am pretty sure I will just ask for the qualification test and show them how I can handle a weapon and shoot it accurately. No doubts at all that I can do that probably just as good or even better than guys who went through tactical this or that, not to be boastful or anything, I just spend a hell of a lot of time shooting and reloading, but ain't got no "official" paperwork.

[Naro]

I agree with the DON'T maintain such a "resume". You may open a can of worms and allow the opposing attorney to argue 1) that you should be held to a higher standard, and/or 2) That you aren't following your training (they can ALWAYS find something you didn't do exactly as trained). On the other hand, having such documentation can't help you in any way I can imagine

[MarkCO]

Thanks for the replies. I figured there was a good chance there would be opposing views.

I will tell you that as an expert, I scrutinize the documents I get in cases. But as a person who shoots and trains, I also understand that no training can completely account for everything.

Maybe one of the attorneys can answer, but I don't see a place where "sophisticated user" would detrimentally apply to a person's training. But I have had cases where that did apply to actual misuse of a firearm.

[OldMarksman]

On the other hand, having such documentation can't help you in any way I can imagine.

You need to rethink that one.

A 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. If you need help on that, let us know.

Showing that the actor did in fact know those things at the time will require the production and the admission of evidence to that effect.

Without it, the defendant's case may be seriously weakened.

Thus, not having such documentation can hurt you--or if you prefer, having it can help you.

[Mannlicher]

I don’t see a reason for me to document any training. It’s not required, and not needed by me or any one else for anything. God forbid We’re I ever in a self defense situation, I’d have more important things on my mind. Having, or NOT having training is not likely to be a factor with regards to any litigation resulting from an altercation.

[OldMarksman]

Having, or NOT having training is not likely to be a factor with regards to any litigation resulting from an altercation.

No one can speak to likelihood, but should your defense of justification fail, the consequences would be extremely serious.

That defense will spend upon evidence and the admissibility of evidence.

Proper documentation of training can be a make or break determinant on that score.

[Rachen]

You need to rethink that one.

A 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. If you need help on that, let us know.

Showing that the actor did in fact know those things at the time will require the production and the admission of evidence to that effect.

What it really is, is a double edged sword.

Everyone who takes defensive combat seriously should undergo some kind of training. There are a lot of types of training. Some are formal. Some are informal. Some are legit. Others regurgitate things from widely-available videos and charge you a fee. And then there are some who are only interested in how much $$ you can cough up. Being smart and finding the right training is key. And a lot of the formal training programs do give out things akin to martial arts belts or such.

Now, to "document" it or not? If you are looking for a job that requires or recommends such training, you will be advantaged to document it. HOWEVER, if you always wave it in the air like a big stick, you will come off like a mall ninja. If you are ever caught in a muddy situation and have to use your training, and you are perfectly justified, flaunting your "black belt" or "tin star" might not even be necessary for you to win your case.

If you are NOT justified in the use of force, AND you flaunt it around, once again, you will be portrayed as a mall ninja. Only this time, there is a court of law involved and the guys with the robes and gavels might not be too impressed with your antics. It is just like those "CCW Badges" that used to be hot topic around here and I still remember the discussions to why these things are NOT a good idea.

See how it is a double-edged sword?

[OldMarksman]

What it really is, is a double edged sword.

Being able to present evidence in my defense is never a double edged sword.

Everyone who takes defensive combat seriously should undergo some kind of training.

You have that one right!

Now, to "document" it or not? If you are looking for a job that requires or recommends such training, you will be advantaged to document it.

Sure.

HOWEVER, if you always wave it in the air like a big stick, you will come off like a mall ninja. If you are ever caught in a muddy situation and have to use your training, and you are perfectly justified, flaunting your "black belt" or "tin star" might not even be necessary for you to win your case.

I think I'm with you on that.

If you are NOT justified in the use of force, AND you flaunt it around, once again, you will be portrayed as a mall ninja. Only this time, there is a court of law involved and the guys with the robes and gavels might not be too impressed with your antics.

If i am not justified in my use of force, how I am "portrayed" will make no difference.

It is just like those "CCW Badges" that used to be hot topic around here and I still remember the discussions to why these things are NOT a good idea.

Entirely different subject.

See how it is a double-edged sword?

No!

Let me repeat: Being able to present evidence in my defense is never a double edged sword.

[Rachen]

No!

Let me repeat: Being able to present evidence in my defense is never a double edged sword.

I get where you are coming from. But on another thread I have brought up that in some places like China, professional, as in belted, martial artists are held up to much more responsibility than the average Joe off the street. If said martial artist gets into a confrontation where force is not needed and ends up seriously injuring the perp, the martial artist with an official belt will be prosecuted FAR more severely than Joe Sixpack if he had done the same thing.

Of course, both Black Belt and Joe S. are civilians. But because Black Belt has a black belt, the courts will see him as bearing far more weight.

I am not sure if the US has a similar way of dealing with civilian SD shootings, but lets look at it with a DRASTIC example. Note: This scenario is drastic, but is something that is well within the reality of our lives:

Scenario: Middle of a crowded outdoor shopping area. An individual brandishes something long and dark with the outlines of a semiautomatic rifle and begins waving it, yelling "You are all gonna die today! You are all gonna die today!". Repeatedly. And then he suddenly holds the very rifle-like object and aims it directly at the crowds. His hands look like they are about to go for the trigger. You happen to be standing behind him as he does this. You draw your trusty Glock 17 and fire one shot through the raging maniac's head, flooring him instantly. Threat has been nullified.

And then, it is revealed that the guy did not have an actual rifle. He was mentally ill, craved attention and had cut out a length of cardboard to resemble an AR in it's entirety and painted it to look exactly like the real thing too. Only deadly item he had on him was a kitchen knife inside his jacket. BUT even close up, no one can tell the dummy rifle apart from the real thing.

If a prosecutor was really having a bad day and hated "gun toting vigiliantes" (anti-gunner lingo), he could easily throw the book at you for shooting at someone who did not actually "open fire" on the crowds. NOW it is your turn for your defense to argue how your actions WERE justified during the moment. You are looking at freedom, or a manslaughter charge thanks to Mr. Draconian Prosecutor. Would having an official history of "tactical defensive pistol training and being a certified handgun instructor add more weight to your argument?

[hdwhit]

MarkCO asked:
Do you "Document" your training?

What training would you take and document?

* Conflict Resolution?
* Mediation?
* Conciliation?

As others have already posted, an extensive record of training in how to employ a firearm with greater lethality (with no corresponding training in how to avoid needing to employ the firearm in the first place) does seem to open the door to opposing counsel characterizing you as someone looking for a situation in which you could shoot. It might not occur in the criminal trial, but in the civil suit that comes afterward.

[OldMarksman]

Scenario: Middle of a crowded outdoor shopping area. An individual brandishes something long and dark with the outlines of a semiautomatic rifle and begins waving it, yelling "You are all gonna die today! You are all gonna die today!". Repeatedly. And then he suddenly holds the very rifle-like object and aims it directly at the crowds. His hands look like they are about to go for the trigger. You happen to be standing behind him as he does this. You draw your trusty Glock 17 and fire one shot through the raging maniac's head, flooring him instantly. ....

And then, it is revealed that the guy did not have an actual rifle. He was mentally ill, craved attention and had cut out a length of cardboard to resemble an AR in it's entirety and painted it to look exactly like the real thing too. Only deadly item he had on him was a kitchen knife inside his jacket. BUT even close up, no one can tell the dummy rifle apart from the real thing.

... a prosecutor ... could easily throw the book at you for shooting at someone who did not actually "open fire" on the crowds.

NOW it is your turn for your defense to argue how your actions WERE justified during the moment..... Would having an official history of "tactical defensive pistol training and being a certified handgun instructor add more weight to your argument?

The outcome would depend upon how the triers of fact evaluate the totality of the evidence.

That is, of the evidence that is admitted into court.

Would a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, have fired?

The determination would be influenced by arguments about how much time you had to decide, and how much time you had to act. Was your action reasonable?

The prosecutor will not have any way of reasonably judging that, nor will the jurors, without some help.

Expect both sides to bring in expert witnesses--people who know reaction times, how long it takes to draw, how long it takes from the time a decision to fire is made until the weapon is fired, reasonable expectations regarding accuracy and precision, etc..

But if your expert intends to testify that a reasonable person would draw and fire the way you did under the circumstances, even if the facts later indicated that your victim had not been a danger, the question may very well become one of did you know at the time that your action had been reasonable.

That's where the admissibility of evidence regarding your having received relevant training would become critical.

I will also argue that if you had not been trained, you should not be drawing and firing a gun in a crowd.

[TunnelRat]

I am not in any way a lawyer. Let me float this though. If I am dealing with the situation just described I want training. I think it will improve both my ability to survive and my ability to preserve the lives of others. To me that's factual and not really up for debate.

What I'm seeing a bunch now is the argument that if I "document" my training then the prosecution will look up that training, the details of that training, and then use those details to find flaws in my decision making and then roast me. However, what do we mean by "document"? People are describing a very active prosecution, which is certainly possible. What I'm confused about though is how such a prosecution won't find records of my training regardless. By "document" I mean that in a location in my house I have a folder with certificates from the completion of each course. This folder isn't hidden, but it isn't advertised either. I am not talking about advertising it in a public fashion. That said, any place of any repute is going to have records of me attending those classes. If the prosecution is as active as described, how are they not going to find out about those classes? Certainly someone somewhere knows I took those classes. They are not "underground".

My argument then is this. If I take training to improve my chances of surviving the encounter, then regardless of how well "documented" that training is I have to face the possibility of that training coming up in a trial, whether by me or others. To me that is mostly unavoidable.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk